Re: Checklist request (was: RFC: Deb 2.0 testing process)
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Philip Hands wrote:
> > For example, with the diff package:
> >
> > Package: diff
> > - cmp works on identical and different binary or text files
> > - diff works on files, directories, normal or 2 column
> > - sdiff correctly merges two files
> > - diff3 correctly compares 3 files
>
> It seems a shame to have to ask people to do this sort of thing.
>
> It strikes me that one should be able to come up with a script that does a
> test of this sort in not much more that the time required to write the list (in
> this simple case at least ;-)
This is the second time I've heard this, and it is a valid point. The
reason I don't fully back it is a tester using their own test may catch
some case the package designer never thought of. How about this, a
maintainer can make a script, called /usr/doc/<pkg>/testme.sh. It can run
any test the maintainer wants to do. In the checklist, the maintainer
writes that the script is available, and test for the below things...
This way, the testers can add their own things to the checklist even if
the maintainer disagrees. This aproach favors more testing than less,
since if a maintainer disagrees with a test, it's still in the checklist,
and if they want a test not in the list (should be rare if ever), they can
put it in their script. Testers will be encouraged to make any
modifications to the given script (but not required), and then use their
own script.
> Another thing is that the tests or checklists that are written, should be
> testing for problems that have actually occured in the past.
Just because something works in the past doesn't mean it won't fail in the
future. It would be nice if we can catch some bugs that haven't happened
yet. The bash bugs come to mind (with netscape not running any helper
apps).
Comments?
Brandon
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: