Le jeudi 8 septembre 2011 21:16:50, Florian Hubold a écrit : > Am 08.09.2011 13:08, schrieb Colin Guthrie: > > 'Twas brillig, and Samuel Verschelde at 08/09/11 11:59 did gyre and gimble: > >> (QA Team and Triage team in CC, but please answer only to > >> [email protected]) > >> > >> I was asked to define a process for backports validation, so here is a > >> proposal. We can discuss it a few days and then I'll add the result to > >> the backports policy page. > >> > >> Process for backports : > >> > >> Triage: > >> - identify backport requests > >> - add "Backport Request: " in the bug report summary > >> - add the "backport" keyword > >> - assign to maintainer > >> > >> The maintainer can refuse to do the backport : > >> - doesn't want to maintain it => assign the bug report back to > >> [email protected] so that another packager can step in > >> - has a good reason for not providing this backport (policy, possible > >> breakage...) => close as wontfix > >> > >> Packager: > >> - create bug report if not done already > >> - submit to {core,nonfree,tainted}/backports_testing > > > > Is this straight from the cauldron tree in subversion? > > > >> - find a tester : original bug reporter when there is one, yourself if > >> there's none, or ask in forums/irc/MLs... > >> - once tested by at least one person (it must be said explicitly in the > >> bug > >> > >> report), hand it to QA : > >> - make sure the bug report summary starts with "Backport Request: " > >> or > >> > >> "Backport Candidate:" > >> > >> - add the "backport" keyword if missing > >> - assign to [email protected] > >> - list the source RPMs if there are several > >> > >> - be ready to fix bugs and answer QA team questions > >> > >> QA: > >> - test backports the same way that we test updates. But don't forget > >> that updates have a higher priority than that of backports. > >> - move the packages from backports_testing to backports > > > > Just from a man power perspective this, could be a lot of work for QA > > (even at lower priority) but I cannot see a way to improve this without > > sacrificing quality control! > > If the packager himself does basic testing and makes sure backport works, > that would relieve QA from some work, no?
In my opinion this is what a packager should always do, be it for an update, a backport, or a package in cauldron. But this doesn't remove the need for a QA validation if we want to guarantee a minimal level of quality. Samuel
