On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:12:25PM -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > 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. I came back to clarify after thinking about it a bit more, but you beat me to it :) Devel and testing are not two sides and I realize that my initial tone seems to indicate that, so I take that back. I fully accept the idea that developers need to document ways to test their application. However at the same time, there is currently a reasonably high barrier to becoming a packager for Fedora and it might not be a bad idea to have something similar for QE. An individual wanting to get started in Fedora packaging has to prove their competence and understanding of the packaging guidelines by commenting on package review requests in addition to submitting their own package for review. There is a side door to this in the form of co-maintainership but that too is gated by a Fedora contributor. What I am looking for is a mechanism similar to that for testing. Maybe one way to do this would be to allow everyone to comment but restrict karma rights only to individuals who are in a specific group and then have that group gated by a testing mentor. This in itself will give plenty of opportunity for mentoring. > 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. Barriers to entry for any engineering task should be sufficiently high that it does not grossly compromise on quality. Developers not using the automatic testing framework is obviously their fault, but that is a conversation for a different thread. Siddhesh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
