Fedora.us QA Queue

[Nils O. Selåsdal]

On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 02:53, Michael A. Koziarski wrote:
> Hey guys,
> 
> The fedora.us QA queue is very full right now.  This potentially could
> discourage potential packagers as their shiny new packages languish on the
> queue.  While obviously the ideal solution is hundreds of skilled &
> qualified QA people, the reality is that the numbers are lacking here.
> 
> I'd like to propose a modification to the package submission procedure.
> 
> The current system is:
> 
> 1) New package submitted
> 2) QA
> 3) PUBLISH
> 4) PENDING
> 5) VERIFIED
> 6) CLOSED
> 
> With the QA step, naturally, taking the longest.  In order to keep the QA
> queue relatively clean,  I'd like to see some kind of pre-QA keyword.
> 
> What I'm envisioning here is a step to rule out packages that:
> 
> 1) Don't build/install cleanly on the supported distributions
> 2) Sources can't be verified against upstream
> 3) Crash, print warnings or don't work when they are installed
> 4) Are duplicates
> 6) etc.
> 
> By ruling out such simple errors the talented QA people can focus on
> things like packaging standards, spec file errors and other such
> complicated things.  Whereas the enthusiastic-but-not-quite-there people
> (myself included) can help with the simpler errors.
> 
> Also, by staying in the bug's CC throughout its submission process, the
> pre-QA team will see the kind of errors that they're missing and will
> slowly but surely make the transition to Fully Fledged QA.
> 
> 
> Comments?  Flames?
One thing I'd like is to have the packages in CVS or similar..
So I easily could change the spec files or similar when QA'ing.
Often it's trivial or just some buildrequirements missing, and the 
round trip time between QA and fixing things gets long. 
But thats me.. And I guess ensuring the quality would be harder this
way ...

-- 
Vennlig hilsen/Best Regards
Nils Olav Selåsdal
System Engineer
UtelSystems a/s

w w w . u t e l s y s t e m s . c o m