Don't put new packages through updates-testing

[Hans de Goede]

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