submitters +1ing their own packages

Josh Boyer jwboyer at
Fri Sep 9 11:06:35 UTC 2011

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Nils Philippsen <nils at> wrote:
> 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 meant that it should be implied that the package maintainer already
did some amount of testing on the package before they submitted it as
an update.  A basic minimum touch test that it doesn't break things,
etc.  This is entirely outside the updates process and just common
sense good practice.


More information about the devel mailing list