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

Re: Don't put new packages through updates-testing



Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 13:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 20:32 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
Not true many reviewers review on the latest stable, it says nowhere that a review should be done on rawhide.
Review is about guidelines and nowhere in the guideline does it even say that the fucntionality of the package should be tested. When I suggested that it be added I got back a knee jerk reaction to participate in reviews myself.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines::

- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
example.
I suggested that it the "SHOULD" be changed to "MUST". A package that doesnt even start shouldnt be getting past reviews.
1. packages never start, applications do.

Pendantic waste.

2. many applications, when being cluelessly used, only mean they have a
functional "usage()"

Which covers base functionality.


Ralf wrote in reply to this: "<beep> - You apparently don't have any clues about what you are talking about."

I do not agree with the beep, but let me stress the point:
"You apparently don't have any clues about what you are talking about."

What Ralf means with:
>> 2. many applications, when being cluelessly used, only mean they have a
>> functional "usage()"

And which should be fully understandable by anyone who claims to have enough domain knowledge to discuss and decide policies, is that if a reviewer just runs app foo like this:
foo <enter>

That changes then are large the user will see something like:
usage: foo [opt] <input-file> or <output-file>

Which sure does NOT cover basic functionality. First please get a clue about what we are talking about (by say packaging 30 packages?) and then return to this discussion.

Thank you for first getting a clue,

Hans


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