QA-process for new packages

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:32:32 +0200, Silke Reimer wrote:

> Thanks! This explanation (toghether with you remarks below) helped me to
> understand better the philosophy of the Fedora project. Perhaps I
> should add that I am coming from the debian world. Thus it is quite
> confusing from time to time to understand what similar and what is
> different in the Fedora way to set up the project.

Well, I'm not a spokesman of the Fedora Project. Actually, fedora.us
is still a separate project inspite of the announced merger with the
Fedora Project and the ongoing preparations to import it into Fedora
Extras CVS. Except for semi-public draft documents or proposals I've
not seen anything concrete on what the final "Fedora way" will look
like.

So, currently, there's no organized QA team or anything like that,
which processes package requests in FIFO order or who are assigned
tickets by project leadership or team manager(s). Community commitment
is the key.

I wouldn't mind seeing some people who go through the queue and
re-prioritise packages based on popularity, importance (e.g.
dependencies and project objectives), or other factors.

I've also mentioned before that I'd like package developers and users
to build small QA teams or reduce QA efforts to a minimum (= security
relevant checks and some items from the QA checklist) and start
publishing in "unstable" or "testing" repository rather than "stable".

> So please excuse
> my sometimes ignorant questions. (And I prefer to ask stupid
> questions instead of doing something in the "wrong" way.)

No problem. At least you do ask. That's far better than not asking at
all and complaining based on misunderstandings.

> OK. I could of course go and review some packages that I already use
> or might use if they are in Fedora. But right now I feel that I
> would like to have one of my package fully reviewed before I look at
> other pacakges. Thus I could  see what are the issues that I should
> look at and I can become more comfortable with the Fedora way of
> thinking (which also has impact on how to build a package).

True. But by taking look at other packager's packages, you learn
how they do it. Could be helpful.

Primary objectives are to verify source checksums and to get packages
to build (in 'mach' / in the fedora.us build-system / in a system
cleaned up with fedora-rmdevelrpms).  Too many packages don't even
build. Once they build, it's possible to examine package contents and
to perform run-time checks. When, however, a package fails to build,
and when you take a closer look and you notice lots of mistakes,
pitfalls, and potentially broken things, you post your findings as
comments. Ssometimes that looks as if a reviewer picks on a package
developer.

-- 
Fedora Core release 2.91 (FC3 Test 2) - Linux 2.6.8-1.590
loadavg: 3.19 3.10 1.98