old_testing_critpath notifications

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 01:16:18PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 12:30 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:25:03AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:10 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > > > That being the case, I test the package fairly rigorously myself.  But
> > > > this process doesn't take that into account.  I test far more things
> > > > than you get with a few people just doing smoke tests, but the smoke
> > > > tests are actually the gating factor.  If you changed the process so a
> > > > maintainer can indicate they've done their own fairly extensive testing,
> > > > that would satisfy me.  But that also opens the door for abuse, so you
> > > > would have to watch maintainers once you enabled this ability.
> > > 
> > > I've posted in the thread earlier that I'd actually like to do this,
> > > others seem opposed however.
> > >
> > FWIW I'm for it with your explanation and added it to the Update
> > brainstorming page last night:
> > 
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Changes_Ideas_Container
> 
> If we go this way, I'd propose adding additional guidelines to the
> proventester policy specific to maintainers testing their own packages.
> 
> * Test the actual build that will go out, from Koji - don't test your
> own local build of the same spec
> 
> * Try and test in a reasonably user-ish environment, not your own highly
> customized one; if this means using a separate user account or a VM, do
>
Note about this second bullet:  I'm not sure this is good advice.  There's
been quite a few times I've encountered bugs in end-user oriented programs
where deleting the config files in my home directory made the bug
"disappear".  Similarly, I remember there was a bind update a few releases
back where the package was trying to rewrite the existing config files which
failed when the update was attempted on boxes that had already customized
the config.

I see what you're trying to get at here but I think what it really boils
down to is -- "you should have two sets of eyes look at this."  So perhaps,
upping the karma requirement to +2 and letting maintainers +1 their own
updates helps here.

Note that that doesn't help the non-critpath packages get accepted faster
but it could help the critpath packages in two ways:

1) If you don't touch the requirements for critpath, it still just needs two
+1 and now the packager can give one of those themselves.

2) If the maintainer happens to be a proventester, then they only need to
find a regular user to give the other karma point.

-Toshoi
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20101202/4500863d/attachment.bin