QA process was Re: RPM submission procedure

Gene C. czar at czarc.net
Tue Jan 13 06:50:04 UTC 2004


On Monday 12 January 2004 12:50, Michael K. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:00:29AM -0500, Gene C. wrote:
> > I am also seeing QA requirements well beyond what Red Hat does internally
> > (from my perspective) and what I believe is reasonable.  While I believe
> > that some QA rules are needed, lets make them realistic ... lots of rules
> > about package format are reasonable but the quality of the code in the
> > package will only be discovered through testing (actually running the
> > software).
>
> There are many levels of QA.  We don't have to have the same kind of rules
> for QA that, say, a proprietary software company does.  I think that
> package QA is primarily to make sure that the packaging has not been
> screwed up, and secondarily to look for faults in the software itself.
>
> There will always be bugs.  The point isn't to get rid of all bugs before
> declaring the software usable.  The point is to avoid disaster while
> keeping up with the amazing development speed of open source software....
> Open source gives us a better opportunity to fix bugs without waiting
> through a whole cycle.
>
> So exactly what needs to be done for QA depends on what has been done
> in development.  If a previously OK'ed package has had one minor patch
> added to fix a bug, then QA just does not have to be extensive.  If it
> is an entirely new version that has had very little upstream testing,
> then it needs more.
>
> This seems like common sense to me.  :-)


Agreed!!  Unfortunately, this is not my understanding of what is being said in 
some of the messages in this thread.  I am hoping that it is simply a 
misunderstanding by me.
-- 
Gene





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list