On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:16:59PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > 2) Report packages which *don't* have any test suites at all.
> Could you provide the rationale for 2? Why do you want to do it and
> what does Fedora gain by doing it?
Better code quality, less risk of regressions
Alexander Todorov wrote:
> My question is:
> **Is everyone, especially package maintainers OK with me filing 1000+ bugs
> ?**
NO!
Especially not for something like this. There is no requirement for a test
suite to exist, and there should not be such a requirement. If the test
suite does not exi
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:55:48 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> If you have code that can fairly reliably detect whether a test suite
> exists in the source tar.gz, then I think you would be justified
> in filing bugs for spec files which have not enabled the test suite.
It would need to be a tes
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 16:48 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher
> > wrote:
> >> Please make sure to follow
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing to the letter. If you
> >> do not, it will make life very difficult.
> >>
>
> Thanks,
On 2/21/14, 9:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:19:29PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:50:12PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Personally, I don't think %check is a good i
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:19:29PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:50:12PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > Personally, I don't think %check is a good idea at all.
> >
> > I think the benefit depends
На 21.02.2014 17:16, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski написа:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 16:08, Alexander Todorov wrote:
[...]
Guys I can do both.
1) Report packages which *have* test suites but they are *not* executed in
%check
2) Report packages which *don't* have any test suites at all.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:50:12PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Personally, I don't think %check is a good idea at all.
>
> I think the benefit depends on the level of patching the Fedora maintainer
> is doing. If they are shipp
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 16:08, Alexander Todorov wrote:
[...]
> Guys I can do both.
>
> 1) Report packages which *have* test suites but they are *not* executed in
> %check
>
> 2) Report packages which *don't* have any test suites at all.
>
> 1) is easy but I'm more interested in 2)
Coul
Looks like reporting missing test suites in Bugzilla is not accepted. I guess
it's just me who prefers Bugzilla compared to other media.
I *will use the Wiki* for this.
On the topic of tests not executed in %check I *will use Bugzilla* but Alexander
Kurtakov brings up another angle - tests ex
On 02/21/2014 03:53 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
If the maintainer is including any non-trivial patches that I think that
enabling %check should almost be mandatory to ensure they are not causing
regressions through their patches.
I don't
На 21.02.2014 16:58, Tom Hughes написа:
On 21/02/14 14:57, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
to focus on creating them (be i
Am 21.02.2014 15:51, schrieb Alexander Todorov:
> На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
>> Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
>> tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in
>> the Fedora package?
>
> I want to track which pac
On 02/21/2014 03:51 PM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in
the Fedora package?
Hi Richard,
I meant just the opposite
- Original Message -
> From: "Josh Boyer"
> To: "Daniel P. Berrange" , "Development discussions
> related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:53:03 PM
> Subject: Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite trackin
На 21.02.2014 16:55, Daniel P. Berrange написа:
If you have code that can fairly reliably detect whether a test suite
exists in the source tar.gz, then I think you would be justified
in filing bugs for spec files which have not enabled the test suite.
At present I'm aware of 11 different loca
На 21.02.2014 16:53, Tom Hughes написа:
Why would you file a bug in the Fedora bug tracker when the package has no test
suite upstream? That makes no sense - if the upstream package has no tests then
the bug belongs upstream not in Fedora.
Same reason you file kernel bugs in Bugzilla.redhat
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> На 21.02.2014 16:54, Stephen Gallagher написа:
>
>
>> Please do not file hundreds of bugs that will be closed WONTFIX. It's
>> a waste of everyone's time.
>>
>
> Hi Stephen,
> how do you propose to track this then? I don't think a wiki pa
On 21/02/14 14:57, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
to focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC
participa
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>
> >I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
> >to focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC
> >participants or whoever is willing to step up
"
>
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:51:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite
> tracking
>
> На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
> > Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
>
На 21.02.2014 16:54, Stephen Gallagher написа:
Please do not file hundreds of bugs that will be closed WONTFIX. It's
a waste of everyone's time.
Hi Stephen,
how do you propose to track this then? I don't think a wiki page is more
comfortable than Bugzilla.
And why the heck would you CLOSE
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:22:42PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys,
> (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a
> little experiment and counted how many packages are likely to have
> upstream test suites and how many don't:
> http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstre
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 16:51 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able to
> focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC participants or
> whoever is willing to step up to this task).
In that case, I suggest simply k
On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
to focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC
participants or whoever is willing to step up to this task).
Why would you file a bug in the Fedora bug tracker wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 09:51 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
>> Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when
>> upstream tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just
>> not enabled in the
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > That being said, a lot of packages in Fedora are simply that: packaged
>> > upstreams. Many (most?) package maintainers are not developers of that
>> > package and as such
На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in
the Fedora package?
Hi Richard,
I meant just the opposite. However I will also do what you suggest but this
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 02/21/2014 09:22 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> >> Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Please make sure to follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing to the letter. If you
do not, it will make life very difficult.
Thanks, I'll take a look at it and follow it when it comes to mass filing of
bugs.
На 21.02.20
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/21/2014 09:22 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>> Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've
>> done a little experiment and counted how many packages are likely
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 09:22 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've
> done a little experiment and counted how many packages are likely
> to have upstream test suites and how many don't:
> http://atodoro
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:22:42PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys,
> (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a
> little experiment and counted how many packages are likely to have
> upstream test suites and how many don't:
> http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstre
Hi guys,
(note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a little experiment
and counted how many packages are likely to have upstream test suites and how
many don't:
http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstream-test-suite-status-of-fedora-20/
In general around 35% do have test su
34 matches
Mail list logo
