[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Checklist request (was: RFC: Deb 2.0 testing process)

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Adam P. Harris wrote:

> "Philip" == Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
> > It seems a shame to have to ask people to do this sort of thing.
> Yes!  Maybe even against policy?  [Followups on this to debian-policy,
> please.]

We are asking, not requiring.  If you don't want to make a checklist, the
testers _will_, but understand we don't know how half of these packages
work, and this also means less time for testing.  Why are you against
testing packages? If we don't catch it now, a poor user down the road
will.  They claim Debian is a piece of junk, and move on to a better
distribution like Red Hat.

> I applaud the ambitiousness of making test suites for debian core
> packages, but I wonder whether Debian developers should focus the
> packaging and installation system rather than trying to fix all the
> bugs in GNU, etc.  In other words, I think the test suite should
> focus, at least at the outset, on implementing the policy and making
> sure that installation and upgrades go smoothly.  

We already test installs and upgrades.  If you'd like to know what we do
in more detail, read an earlier post "Debian needs guinea pigs" that I
sent here and to deb-user.  It is focused on what the user sees with a
fairly default setup, so if we have time, I'll suggest some /bin/sh ->
/bin/ash testing.

> [BTW, I'm not trying to criticize the current state of hamm, I know
> the freeze is a ways off and there's a lot of instability going on.]

But given my schedule over the next month, any freeze will be too soon.


Brandon Mitchell <bhmit1@mail.wm.edu>   "We all know linux is great... it
PGP: finger -l bhmit1@cs.wm.edu          does infinite loops in 5 seconds"
Phone: (757) 221-4847                      --Linus Torvalds

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: