Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Raul has suggested to add test cases to debian/rules to certify that a > bug is gone. As much as I think our documentation should encourage > maintainers to write test cases, I believe this puts undue stress on > package maintainers. Moreover, if we do not have the cooperation of > the upstream maintainers, writing test cases is going to be very > difficult (they are generally very sensitive to minor changes in the > code). > > The debian-testing group is actually working on this issue as well, > someone should liase with them. > > But again, my personal opinion is that it would be a *mistake* to > require certification that a bug is closed before uploading a > fix. Take my case; I maintain MH; it is totally un-maintained upstream > and obsoletely by nmh. My maintenance principle is to take the path > of least resistance when fixing bugs; sometimes, even, I just forward > them to the (dormant) upstream maintainers and just suggest to the bug > submitter that active development should be directed towards nmh, not > MH. Now, why should policy suddenly tell me I'm wrong to do this?
I also am most worried by this prospect. I maintain fvwm95 - most of the bugs, when manually reproduceable at all, involve odd X manuevers that I can't even begin to think about writing automated tests for. And then there are those bugs that mysteriously seem to disappear for no reason at all. Perhaps a "checklist" of manual tests for bugs combined with an automated script to check for bugs that can be tested that way (Hmm - perhaps a strongly suggested /usr/doc/<package>/bugfixlist ?) might be an option, but really I'd just prefer to rely on maintainer competence not to reintroduce bugs.
