Well there may be a chance this tool may eventually become officially adopted by QA after it gets tested and used long enough to consider it safe/stable.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky < sochotni...@redhat.com> wrote: > Excerpts from "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"'s message of Mon Nov 21 14:25:22 > +0100 2011: > > > [1] https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview > > > [2] https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/browser/api/README > > > > Is this not something that releng/autoqa could use as well as in run > > against all already existing specs and automatically file bugs if they > > aren't ( and to keep things ) up to guidelines? > > I wouldn't be against it, but I can imagine all the shouting on the > bugzilla and mailing lists this would cause(i.e. "But my package is > working!!"). > > Plus output of our tool is more verbose than rpmlint (thought it does > more as well). There will always be tests that cannot be automated for > one reason or the other. In cases like that we have ways to add > helpful information to the template (for example output of > "licensecheck" run on all files in tarball could be added to licensing > part). This helpful output would be considered noise for a lot of > packagers I guess. > > And there will always be false positives. I would hope none of > our checks will have false negative (i.e. check will report "A-OK", > but the guidelines would be broken). > > All that said: If our QA/releng guys find some part of fedora-review > needs some tweaks to be usable for tasks they have to do: file issues > in our trac and we'll do our best. > > -- > Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni...@redhat.com> > Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno > > PGP: 7B087241 > Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
