On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar <sid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
... which is not enough. The definition of 'generally functional' is
vague, as all of us agree and we have seen examples of that being
misused in the past. Requiring devel to document their packages is
one step forward and requiring testers to provide more detailed
feedback on what they tested (so that devel can decide if that is
sufficient) should be the step after that.
Instead of concentrating on testers, what about the packagers who don't even test their
applications before throwing them over the wall to bodhi. I've seen packages that didn't even
get past a simple dnf requisite test because the requires statement in the spec file was
screwed up. Now we have packagers blaming bodhi because they can't read the instructions,
or assuming that a tester hasn't adequately tested a package because it was just released
by bodhi (ignoring the fact that a tester could have gotten that same package days ago from
koji).
As others have already pointed out bodhi was never intended to be a robust testing system.
It was intended to give the packager a high level indication of whether or not there are issues. There is
nothing wrong with "generally functional". At least you're getting some feedback.
If you're concerned about the quality of the testing, then simply raise the karma limit, or turn off the auto push.
If you start putting up barriers to people providing feedback you'll soon find you have none. Which would
you rather have, an idea that many people have installed your package and haven't noticed any issues or
a nice complicated test plan that no one bothers to run and you are left with no feedback. If anything, if
there is a test script, that script should be run by the packager BEFORE they send their application to
bodhi. That would be more helpful.
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
