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

Re: RFC: fedora.us QA approval format

On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 11:23, Aurelien Bompard wrote: 
> I have setup a wiki page with a primary format proposal, and I invite you to
> have a look at it and comment on it: http://www.fedora.us/wiki/QAFormat

Comments on the Review Format:
I like lists and more succinct information.  So I'd slim the output as
much as possible.

Checked <SRPM>

* I would get rid of the first line altogether.  Because these reviews
are going into bugzilla, the package name is already available.  And it
doesn't provide any information the build system needs.  Alternately,
you could make the first line:


so that it's useful for the build system.  (But see my next entry.)

<hash> <filename>

* I would change Files to MD5sums (or MD5SUMS) because at sometime in
the future the build system may support other hash types and it would be
good for it to be able to easily tell which is which one this is.

* I would specify that the <SRPM> always comes first in the HASH
section.  This makes it easier for the release managers and the
buildsystem to parse the HASH-SRPM pairing from the other files.
It could also be separated by a blank line or other visible 


I favor a Good/Blocker/Non-Blocker style with bulletted lists.  For your
sample, I'd implement this as:

  * Sources: bash-completion-20040331.tar.bz2 is valid 
  * Sources: bash-completion.profile is not web-accessible
  * Signature: VALID - bcd241cb 
  * Installs, runs and uninstalls fine on FC1
  * Spec file looks good.



  [Put here the things you want to add about the package]

  {Things todo when editing the review}

* Regarding the Sources lines: I'd include the full URL for the
tarball and say it comes from a canonical source rather than simply
"is valid".
  * http://www.caliban.org/files/bash/bash-completion-20040331.tar.gz is
    the canonical Source location

For the other source line, I'd want something like this:
  * Sources: bash-completion.profile appears to be correct and proper

My reasoning is that I don't care so much about whether I can download
the files off the internet  (More precisely: I only care if I can't.)
I do want to know what works  been done verifying the sources (which
canonicalness of source tarballs helps for the first one and looking
at the file helps for the second.)

These could both go in the TODO section rather than the completed

Anyhow, this looks like it'll be a tremendously helpful tool when
it's finished.  Good work!


  t  o  s  h  i  o  +  t  i  k  i  -  l  o  u  n  g  e  .  c  o  m
                                                          GA->ME 1999

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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