On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 18:04 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> RC> You don't want to know about the bugs and deficits your packages
> RC> suffer from?
>
> Well, to play devil's advocate, if we're to consider lack of
> documentation coverage a bug and block inclusion of packages due to
> those bugs, then we shouldn't even have a kernel.
This is not about "lack of docs", but about packages failing their their
own testsuites, because packages ship with broken testsuites.
A "reasonable" upstream being conscious about their weaknesses/deficits
("known bugs") would change their testsuite to "degrade
gracefully" (e.g. to complain only).
> Of course we should run test suites, and we should of course block
> packages when those test suites fail but are expected to pass. But
> blocking due to lack of documentation coverage is pushing things a bit
> beyond the bounds of reason.
Well, I guess you are aware that a perl-module without sufficiently
complete docs (pods) is almost useless.
Ralf
