Hi all, Erik and myself have been working on a QA check script to automate the QA process at fedora.us. The script is getting quite correct, and can even be useful ;-) At the end of the checks, the script outputs a QA approval report, which can be edited, gpg-signed, and pasted into bugzilla. The question is: what should a QA approval look like to have all the minimum QA requirements and be as parseable as possible by a publishing script for the release manager. Erik and I have different minds on what has to be in the review, so we though we should discuss it here, especially with the release managers. I have setup a wiki page with a primary format proposal, and I invite you to have a look at it and comment on it: http://www.fedora.us/wiki/QAFormat If the script is to get into fedora-rpmdevtools, a complete newbie could contribute meaningful QA's in a format which would be useful to the release manager. This would lower the bar to QA, and standardize the process a little bit more. Please comment Aurélien -- http://gauret.free.fr ~~~~ Jabber : gauret@xxxxxxxxxxxxx If you wish to live wisely, ignore sayings -- including this one.
