RFC: fedora.us QA approval format
Aurelien Bompard
gauret at free.fr
Thu Apr 1 17:56:46 UTC 2004
Panu Matilainen wrote:
> For one it should be such that it's easy to verify that two reviews got
> the same results. Currently since everybody uses slightly different format
> of QA reviews you need to look very carefully to spot possible differences
> (meaning the package has been changed since previous check which could
> mean something nasty is going on) in two reviews and is prone to
> human error.
This is the point of a standardized format, and the QA script can make it
easier.
> For source md5sum's I'd say mark any source checked against upstream with
> (ok) or such, for sources that can't be verified from web do include
> md5sum for it anyway, it allows checking if the file has changed from one
> version to another for example.
OK, I've applied your suggestions on the wiki page. Does this fill your
needs ?
> This is very welcome.. while the QA cannot be completely automated (eg you
> can't just blindly trust whatever happens to read as the package source
> url, it could be somebody's own website with hacked tarball, human sanity
> check is needed) removing boring, error prone manual steps from it is a
> Good Thing.
Totally agreed. Thanks for your support.
Aurélien
--
http://gauret.free.fr ~~~~ Jabber : gauret at amessage.info
L'expérience est quelquechose que l'on acquiert juste après en avoir eu
besoin.
More information about the devel
mailing list