May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/21/2014 09:22 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've
> done a little experiment and counted how many packages are likely
> to have upstream test suites and how many don't: 
> http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstream-test-suite-status-of-fedora-20/
>
> 
> 
> In general around 35% do have test suites, the rest don't.
> 
> My goal is to bring down the number of packages which ship without
> any sort of test suite inside their code base.
> 
> The first step is to identify them and track them in Bugzilla.
> 
> 
> My question is: **Is everyone, especially package maintainers OK
> with me filing 1000+ bugs ?**
> 
> 
> Last time I did so (around 100 bugs) it got a few people unhappy
> so better ask this time!
> 
> If you are unhappy seeing such many bugs and having your mailbox
> full with notifications from Bugzilla please reply with a better
> proposal and why do you consider it better.
> 
> 
> Thanks, Alex


Please make sure to follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing to the letter. If you
do not, it will make life very difficult.

That being said, a lot of packages in Fedora are simply that: packaged
upstreams. Many (most?) package maintainers are not developers of that
package and as such are probably not equipped to add tests to their
systems.

A better case here would be to find a way to identify those packages
whose upstreams have tests that are not being run in %check. That
probably *would* be considered a bug.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlMHYwYACgkQeiVVYja6o6O24ACdG3hrZ4m7AMlwP18IfUtjOnNS
k1oAn2x3cSRhzgEKOp6HqVygDChryw5w
=EAc9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----