Jeff Ratliff wrote: >> > I'm sure the developers would have liked to test on a wider range >> > of machines, but testing is voluntary. You have yet to propose a >> > solution to this problem. >> >> I did actually make a suggestion, >> namely that it should be ensured as far as possible >> that the test distributions could be upgraded to the final distribution. >> >> I would run the test distributions if that were the case, >> and I imagine there are many more like me. >> > I've updated over 94 packages since I installed FC3T1 two > days ago, including 2 new kernels. Who knows how much cruft and > broken stuff will be there by October? It just doesn't seem possible > to guarantee a test release will be upgradable without seriously > hampering testing. I plan on wiping the parition, installing FC2 > and upgrading to FC3test with each test release, so that anaconda > can be tested. If the installer was sufficiently tested, things > like the dual-boot bug probably wouldn't have gotten out the door. As a matter of interest, if there is an error in a particular RPM, why can't it be corrected in an upgrade of that RPM? > My guess is that most people will be upgrading from FC2 to FC3, > and that's what testing is trying to target. I don't understand the relevance of this remark, or indeed what it means. Note that the question was, did I have any suggestion how the number of _testers_ could be increased. -- Timothy Murphy e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
