submitters +1ing their own packages

Nils Philippsen nils at redhat.com
Fri Sep 9 08:13:18 UTC 2011


On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:16 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I don't think a maintainer can realistically replace wide-spread user
> based testing in a variety of environments.

I didn't argue that this would be the case, but rather that persons who
are developers/package maintainers can also wear a tester's hat as long
as they can keep these roles separate.

>   In light of that, we can
> either accept a maintainer +1 as "I tested this as I would use it and
> it worked" (which should be implied by them submitting the update
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> already anyway), or we can disallow it as the policy says.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

No, implicitly assuming that the final package was tested just because a
maintainer submitted it is wrong in my eyes. To me, a maintainer
submitting an update simply means "I've built (a) new package(s) which
should fix these problems, now it/they can be tested." It shouldn't make
a shred of difference if a person testing an update package is a
maintainer or not in this process.

> I don't think adding more definitions or steps to the existing policy
> is really going to improve anything.

Yet making a special case of testing by a maintainer makes the process
more complicated. The policy regarding testing done by maintainers
shouldn't be longer than one or two paragraphs and be summed up in "keep
development and testing separate, ensure that your testing environment
isn't negatively affected by your developing."

Nils
-- 
Nils Philippsen      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase 
Red Hat               a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty
nils at redhat.com       nor Safety."  --  Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint:      C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011



More information about the devel mailing list