[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: RFC: fedora.us QA approval format

Panu Matilainen wrote:
> For one it should be such that it's easy to verify that two reviews got
> the same results. Currently since everybody uses slightly different format
> of QA reviews you need to look very carefully to spot possible differences
> (meaning the package has been changed since previous check which could
> mean something nasty is going on) in two reviews and is prone to
> human error.

This is the point of a standardized format, and the QA script can make it

> For source md5sum's I'd say mark any source checked against upstream with
> (ok) or such, for sources that can't be verified from web do include
> md5sum for it anyway, it allows checking if the file has changed from one
> version to another for example.

OK, I've applied your suggestions on the wiki page. Does this fill your
needs ?

> This is very welcome.. while the QA cannot be completely automated (eg you
> can't just blindly trust whatever happens to read as the package source
> url, it could be somebody's own website with hacked tarball, human sanity
> check is needed) removing boring, error prone manual steps from it is a
> Good Thing.

Totally agreed. Thanks for your support.

http://gauret.free.fr   ~~~~   Jabber : gauret amessage info
L'expérience est quelquechose que l'on acquiert juste après en avoir eu

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]