Re: testing gripes
On 03/15/01 Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm not sure there are any other alternatives that don't have their
> own problems (shortening how long it takes debconf to get into testing
> increases the probabability of undetected problems like the realplayer
> bug; demanding joeyh upload less frequently on a regular basis isn't
> really convenient).
There is also the problem that time alone is not suffcient to
find out if a package is buggy or not (ie a package may enter
testing without having been tested:-). Besides, time is needed
to do the actual testing and we also need to consider that some
packages are used in all/most systems and a bug in them is likely
to show up earlier because of that. So what I propose is something
along these lines:
*) usually packages enter testing after 10 or 5 days.
*) the waiting time can be reduced to 4 and 2 days according
to a score.
*) packages' score is increased sending an email to
pkg-score@debian.org or something like that with the output of
dpkg -s packagename. This is done by someone that has actually
installed the package (and hopefully tested it). The mail
can be GPG signed. A normal mail adds 1 point, a mail gpg-signed
by a developer gets 5 points.
*) 20 points are required to reduce the waiting time by 1 day.
Of course, the above numbers are all made up and they may need to
be tuned, but that's the idea. Note that this could be extended
to not allow a package in unless it gets at least a certain score,
say 50, regardless of the time they are in unstable. Or since we
expect higher quality for required/standard packages they need
100 and 60 points, while optional and extra packages need only
40 and 20 points to enter testing.
This means that packages that were actually tested enter testing
more easily, while untested packages may be left out for longer.
Comments welcome.
lupus
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
lupus@debian.org debian/rules
lupus@ximian.com Monkeys do it better
Reply to: