In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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).
> We can always put test cases in a debian/tests/ directory, if that > is important to the upstream maintainers. >> The debian-testing group is actually working on this issue as well, >> someone should liase with them. > Agreed. But I'm at a loss here -- I don't see a debian-testing > mailing list, and I don't see any testing links off of the > developer's corner of the web site. Yeah, well, I'll CC them here (naughty of me to cross-post, I know). Maybe the list maintainer can clue you in. To be honest, it *should* be a normal, first class, archive-browsable list. There's no reason why it isn't; <debian-testing> is not a cabal. :) >> 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? > Er.. you're saying that you're marking the bug as fixed when it's > only been forwarded upstream? That's a different state than closed, > isn't it? Yes. But it's like saying, "I wash my hands of this bug". ;) > I agree though that if we had a policy of creating tests for > packages that we'd need the bug tracking system to have a "closed > except for a way to test it" state. And, I don't think that bugs in > that state should hold up a release. Raul, I really think the proof is in the pudding. If you can help shape a working, easy enough to manage test suite, and start filling that in (even, just start with base packages), we'll be able to look at it from there and decide if there's a policy to be written or not. .....A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
