Don't put new packages through updates-testing

[Denis Leroy]

Hans de Goede wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 13:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 20:32 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>>>> Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>>>> Not true many reviewers review on the latest stable, it says 
>>>>>>> nowhere that a review should be done on rawhide.
>>>>>> Review is about guidelines and nowhere in the guideline does it 
>>>>>> even say that the fucntionality of the package should be tested. 
>>>>>> When I suggested that it be added I got back a knee jerk reaction 
>>>>>> to participate in reviews myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines::
>>>>>
>>>>> - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
>>>>> described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
>>>>> example.
>>>> I suggested that it the "SHOULD" be changed to "MUST". A package 
>>>> that doesnt even start shouldnt be getting past reviews.
>>> 1. packages never start, applications do.
>>
>> Pendantic waste.
>>
>>> 2. many applications, when being cluelessly used, only mean they have a
>>> functional "usage()"
>>
>> Which covers base functionality.
>>
> 
> Ralf wrote in reply to this: "<beep> - You apparently don't have any 
> clues about what you are talking about."
> 
> I do not agree with the beep, but let me stress the point:
> "You apparently don't have any clues about what you are talking about."
> 
> What Ralf means with:
>  >> 2. many applications, when being cluelessly used, only mean they have a
>  >> functional "usage()"
> 
> And which should be fully understandable by anyone who claims to have 
> enough domain knowledge to discuss and decide policies, is that if a 
> reviewer just runs app foo like this:
> foo <enter>
> 
> That changes then are large the user will see something like:
> usage: foo [opt] <input-file> or <output-file>
> 
> Which sure does NOT cover basic functionality.

Right :-). Actually all it proves is that the dynamic libraries loaded 
correctly. i.e. something that's already guaranteed to happen.

The things to stress are code coverage, basic functionality, and 
especially: anything that interacts with the OS/dekstop such as
   - opening/saving file
   - printing
   - anything that hooks with some Gnome (or KDE) services (keyrings, 
search, proxy settings, ...)
   - config files. are they saved in the right place, and reloaded 
correctly ?

Where in the wiki should we put this information, 
Packaging/ReviewGuidelines ?