On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 20:35:08 +0100 Miloslav Trmač <m...@volny.cz> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Josh Boyer <jwbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
...snip... > >> Finally, the planning process will recognize the existence of these > >> tiers by classifying each proposed change: > >> > >> * Changes to tiers 1 and 2: > >> Strong recommendation that new stable APIs have new tests > >> delivered at approximately the same time, if possible. This > >> benefits change owners by diminishing the risk of accidental > >> breakage of the functionality. Existing tests for the > >> functionality must be updated at the same time as well. > >> Waivers may be requested of FESCo. > > > > Are you envisioning the package maintainers to have to write these > > tests if they don't exist upstream? > > Yes. Are these tests that run as part of package build? Or are we talking something like autoqa tests? Or ? > My personal opinion: > > * For UI and APIs, we want the things included in tier 2 to be > sufficiently stable/tested, which probably means they should already > have an upstream test suite; if they don't, and Fedora decides that > they > are important, Fedora should contribute an upstream test suite. > > * I expect that many "change" owners will find it worth their time to > write a test - e.g. in the above example of Avahi it's one-time cost > of writing a fairly simple test that will save manual checking and > worry for the future. How is this gating to rawhide going to work? Or that's yet to be determined? While I like the idea overall, I think the devil will be in the details here. :) If we make the tests too strict, we are going to slow things down, if we make them too manual we push more work on rel-eng, if we don't make them strict enough, we have what we have today, but with more red tape. kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
