how/when to QA [Re: changes are still needed]

[Pekka Savola]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 10:55 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
>> Remember, almost all patches we use come from ***already QA'd
>> sources***.
>
> So why do inexperienced people need to do more Q&A on those packages?

So that at least someone has tested that the application seems to 
work.  The application has compiled, it doesn't crash outright with 
basic functionality, etc.  -- that's trivial testing but it has 
non-trivial impact.

If we add tools to the mix (e.g., ways more easily to detect if the 
file list provided by the package, dependencies, libraries, etc. have 
changed), we've achieved a great deal.

Personally, I'd be OK with just publishing "trivial updates" if built 
by a trusted developer without any QA at all, but trivial QA like 
above should be doable by any FL user, might help get the community 
more involved with the project, etc.

For more critical updates, or patches we create on on our, I agree it 
would be strongly desirable to get more QA -- but unfortunately even 
that doesn't seem to be happening all that often.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings