QA process was Re: RPM submission procedure
Timothy John Giese
giese025 at tc.umn.edu
Fri Jan 9 01:56:40 UTC 2004
I'm brand new to the whole process so I thought it might be useful for
me to chime in from my perspective regarding the QA process.
I like checklists. It gives me a good idea of what the expectations
are. I followed the instructions at
http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageSubmissionQAPolicy without difficulty.
Granted, I do not aspire to package hundreds of packages, so I find the
procedure to not be an obstacle.
Again, I find the checklists useful in reviewing submitted packages. I
have followed the instructions from
http://www.fedora.us/wiki/QAChecklist and used them as a basis for
reviewing other people's packages.
On the other hand, I feel deterred from reviewing packages. I am new,
so I am not a "trusted" developer. In order for a package to be
published, it must be approved by 1 trusted developer or 2 untrusted
developers. Given the large number of packages and the relatively few
number of reviewers, I feel that my review provides little help in
speeding the overall publication of a package (because I suspect other
untrusted developers are also deterred). Instead, I feel like any
review I provide will be available to a *trusted* developer whenever the
trusted developer gets the time to review the package and will provide
some assistance to them.... but in terms of the time it takes to publish
the package, it most likely will not speed up the process significatly
(the rate-limiting-step is probably the speed at which a trusted
developer reviews the package).
An obvious solution would be to have untrusted developers dilligently
review packages and thus bypass the trusted devlopers; however, I don't
know what would act to catalyze the motivation for such a response (the
motivation being: feeling as though the contribution leads to a
significant speeding of the process).
I believe that the QA submission procedure may change when fedora.us
becomes fedora extras, so it may be a rash to suggest changes to the
current submission procedure. I can only hope that any procedure used
upon transition of the infrastructure will attempt to address this concern.
Cheers,
Tim Giese
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list