Proposed udpates policy change

[Chris Weyl]

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
> provide features or purely bugfixes, and I don't see any conflict in
> introducing it before those discussions have concluded.
>
> Introduction
> ------------
>
> We assume the following axioms:
>
> 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to
> the user are unacceptable.
>
> 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
> without sufficient testing.
>
> 3) Sufficient testing of software inherently requires manual
> intervention by more than one individual.

Hmm.  So.  I have a package, perl-Moose, that has 4,667 tests run at
build time.  It depends on perl-Class-MOP, which has 2,225 tests, and
it in turn depends on perl, which has 234,776 tests run at build.  On
a future note, we're working on setting up smoke testing, so when we,
say, rebuild perl-Class-MOP we also run perl-Moose's tests.

If I rebuild perl-Moose, or really, any of these packages, what sort
of manual testing would you suggest we require before pushing the
update?

                                     -Chris
-- 
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia