On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 02:14:43 -0500 Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > Well, we'll want to do all sorts of tests that aren't obviously > > tied to any specific package. The only kinds of tests it would make > > sense to have in packages would be tests that are very tightly > > associated with that package, but then we have a whole bunch of > > other tests stored somewhere else, and why not just keep the > > package-specific tests there too? > > > > Well the advantage of keeping the package specific tests along with > the package is that it provides more visible and is more readily > accessible compared to tests that is stored somewhere else. If the > expectation is that QA is going to maintain them, former is fine but > if you want package maintainers to be involved, then a tight > association between the specs etc and tests would be a good thing Sure, but the discussion wasn't around whether to keep any checks in dist-git, it was modifying RPM so that all of the code for package-specific checks is contained within the built RPM. Support for package-specific checks is one of the use cases which sparked the replacement of AutoQA. However, it is also a case where we have to take a step or two backwards before we can start implementing new features. For the moment, our priority is to create a stable system which is capable of running the same generic package-level checks that AutoQA is running. There are a lot of moving parts involved so while we are planning to add functionality, it seems a bit silly to plan that out in any detail before the base system is finalized and in place. Tim
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
