On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 06:00:20PM -0800, Chris Weyl wrote: > Hmm. So. I have a package, perl-Moose, that has 4,667 tests run at > build time. It depends on perl-Class-MOP, which has 2,225 tests, and > it in turn depends on perl, which has 234,776 tests run at build. On > a future note, we're working on setting up smoke testing, so when we, > say, rebuild perl-Class-MOP we also run perl-Moose's tests. > > If I rebuild perl-Moose, or really, any of these packages, what sort > of manual testing would you suggest we require before pushing the > update? Getting it onto users' machines. Testing that a library behaves as documented isn't the problem - the risk is that there's consumers of that library that depend on undefined and (thus) untested behaviour. Making sure that some people who actually use this package install the update reduces the risk that that happens. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
