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

Re: QA-process for new packages

Hallo Michael and Michael,

On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 02:47:25PM -0400, Michael Tiemann wrote:
> Silke, I'll volunteer to be one of your reviewers.

Thank you very much :-)

> On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 14:39, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:26:37 +0200, Silke Reimer wrote:
> > 
> > > Some time ago I submitted a few packages on fedora.us. One of them
> > > (gdal, Bug #1964) got lots of comments so I rebuilt the package and
> > > announced it today. Due to several reasons it took me some time to
> > > rebuild the package and meanwhile I have been set as owner of the
> > > bug (and of all my other bugs (#1965, #2000 and #2001) as well).
> > 
> > The assignment of package request tickets to package owners has been
> > announced and explained on this list around two weeks ago.

Yes, but it doesn't help me to understand the implications of this
reassignement. Together with your additional information from below
it does make lots more sense to me.

> >  
> > > Since I am not member of the QA team
> > 
> > Who said that? 
> > 
> > You _are_ a member of the QA team. The community does QA on packages
> > in the queue. That's pre-release QA. Other members of the community do
> > post-release QA and submit bug reports when they find something in
> > the published packages.

Thanks! This explanation (toghether with you remarks below) helped me to
understand better the philosophy of the Fedora project. Perhaps I
should add that I am coming from the debian world. Thus it is quite
confusing from time to time to understand what similar and what is
different in the Fedora way to set up the project. So please excuse
my sometimes ignorant questions. (And I prefer to ask stupid
questions instead of doing something in the "wrong" way.)

> > > I don't really understand this
> > > action. I thought that people that are new to fedora can submit
> > > packages thus being submitter of a bug. Afterwards the QA team
> > > assigns someone to do the quality assurance and the submitter will
> > > have to fix the package if there are problems.
> > 
> > There's no such system. Doing QA on new packages and package updates
> > is done by volunteers. And they are not assigned packages to QA, but
> > they choose interesting submissions themselves. This system is flawed.
> > Because if I reviewed and approved 200 different new packages, I would
> > need to assure that any future update requests for those 200 packages
> > are QA'ed, too, until the package developer reaches "trusted" status.
> > 
> > So, what I've been doing recently is to pick packages from new
> > contributors and give them the chance to get a package published. In
> > return, however, I'd like to see that they engage in QA and help other
> > contributors. I've counted more than 60 different names in the queue,
> > so theoretically, there are enough different people to choose from.
> > Further, I monitor the REVIEWED queue, and I take a look at older
> > package requests from the trusted developers, too, because they don't
> > need QA for updates.

OK. I could of course go and review some packages that I already use
or might use if they are in Fedora. But right now I feel that I
would like to have one of my package fully reviewed before I look at
other pacakges. Thus I could  see what are the issues that I should
look at and I can become more comfortable with the Fedora way of
thinking (which also has impact on how to build a package).


Silke Reimer

Intevation GmbH                      http://intevation.de/
FreeGIS                                http://freegis.org/

Attachment: pgp00004.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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