QA process was Re: RPM submission procedure

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 01:50:04 -0500, Gene C. wrote:

> On Monday 12 January 2004 12:50, Michael K. Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:00:29AM -0500, Gene C. wrote:
> > > I am also seeing QA requirements well beyond what Red Hat does internally
> > > (from my perspective) and what I believe is reasonable.  While I believe
> > > that some QA rules are needed, lets make them realistic ... lots of rules
> > > about package format are reasonable but the quality of the code in the
> > > package will only be discovered through testing (actually running the
> > > software).
> >
> > There are many levels of QA.  We don't have to have the same kind of rules
> > for QA that, say, a proprietary software company does.  I think that
> > package QA is primarily to make sure that the packaging has not been
> > screwed up, and secondarily to look for faults in the software itself.
> >
> > There will always be bugs.  The point isn't to get rid of all bugs before
> > declaring the software usable.  The point is to avoid disaster while
> > keeping up with the amazing development speed of open source software....
> > Open source gives us a better opportunity to fix bugs without waiting
> > through a whole cycle.
> >
> > So exactly what needs to be done for QA depends on what has been done
> > in development.  If a previously OK'ed package has had one minor patch
> > added to fix a bug, then QA just does not have to be extensive.  If it
> > is an entirely new version that has had very little upstream testing,
> > then it needs more.
> >
> > This seems like common sense to me.  :-)
> 
> 
> Agreed!!  Unfortunately, this is not my understanding of what is being said in 
> some of the messages in this thread.  I am hoping that it is simply a 
> misunderstanding by me.

Maybe we should discuss a specific package request ticket and how to QA
it.

--