On Tuesday 23 October 2007 08:07, Emmet Hikory wrote: > Brandon Holtsclaw wrote: > > Since it seems there has been a bit of confusion over just exactly what > > needs to be done "pre-upload" to -proposed I suggest the folloing list be > > added to the upload step of the wiki and become official policy so there > > is no confusion about -proposed uploads. This list comes after a > > disscussion in #ubuntu-motu just prior to this email if you all care to > > look back at the logs about how we came up with this list and why ( very > > boring really ) > > > > "Patch applies" > > "Result builds" > > "package upgrades cleanly" > > "application runs" > > "reported issue cannot be reproduced" > > "package uninstalls cleanly" > > "package purges cleanly". > > Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I would add: > > > > "No regression in the functionality being patched." > > > > This doesn't mean regressions are OK, but that regression testing around > > the change is required. > > I'll suggest that this is not always obvious. While I agree it is > expected that the person working on the SRU should perform some level > of testing, including ensuring that the application follows expected > behaviour, I am not convinced that a developer workstation is the > ideal environment to ensure there is no regression from the change, > and that proper regression testing will benefit from a wider audience. > > In short, the developer should test some, but shouldn't be shot > because a regression is later discovered (especially for alternate > architectures, specialised hardware, etc.)
Agreed. I think one is required to try, but that success isn't always guaranteed. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
