+1 from me. On 18/05/11 13:26, Martin Pool wrote: > Elsewhere, on 26 April 2011 08:13, Martin Pitt <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello Martin, >> >> Martin Pool [2011-04-21 18:48 +1000]: >>> On the whole I'm not sure [manually verifying all SRU bugs in bzr] was a >>> good use of time: I think we tend >>> to have problems not so much when we fail to fix the bug but rather >>> when we break something else in doing so. Manually testing the bug is >>> probably not going to catch that, and is probably redundant with >>> testing we did and the original reporter did when it was merged >>> upstream. >> I agree. Indeed I'm much more concerned about regression testing, >> which is of course hard to describe in general for all SRUs. So we >> usually resort to minimal patches and have reporters test the actual >> package in a real environment. Strictly speaking this is not true >> regression testing, but the next best thing to what we can reasonably >> achieve. >> >> In the bzr case however, we can do proper regression testing, because >> it already has a huge test suite. Indeed the MRE says: >> >> conditions: test suite running during package build from Ubuntu >> 11.04 on; SRU verification should run test suite in installed sytem >> >> From my POV doing the latter and then reporting back to one of the >> bugs with "test suite showed no regressions for the package in >> foo-proposed" would suffice here. I think that was the original intent >> when we discussed the MRE. >> >> We handle things in a similar way for other MREs like postgresql or >> Firefox: We run standard tests (manual or automatic suites) for >> signing them off. > I would like to ask the tech board to approve an edit > <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExceptions> > to say something along these lines, in the interests of people getting > changes without wasted effort or inconsistent handling. > > Thanks > Martin >
-- technical-board mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
