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

Re: Is Sid for broken stuff? Is it too much to ask for testing the packages?

On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 10:49:47AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman scribbled:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 02:11:56PM +0100, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 12:10:05AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman scribbled:
> > > Yes, this is exactly the sort of problem that should be found in
> > > unstable.  The maintainer obviously tested that the package installed
> > > correctly for
> > It is not. See the other mails, I don't want to repeat the arguments
> > again.  The code responsible for the bug was never tested by the
> > maintainer - a trivial test was needed.
> The maintainer explicitly said that it installed for him.  The bug was
> clearly not in the common code path; it looks to me like it would only
> execute that line if /etc/postgresql/postgresql.env were deleted.
> So please stop misrepresenting the bug.
How many times do I have to repeat the mantra? Newly added code that's
trivial to test (the case of postgresql.env) MUST be tested and it was not
tested. It was lying untested for 9 months.
> > Oh, come on! I'm tired of that argument, really. I'm not as dumb as I
> > might've seen from my mail - I _do_ realize that unstable can have bugs,
> > trust me. But I also expect the packaging scripts in the .deb to be tested
> > in a basic way. Nah, I won't be repeating the arguments again - I would be
> > too obnoxious I think :)
> It looks to me like they were tested in a basic way by the maintainer, and
> that you ran into a bug that the maintainer didn't.  This is how packages
> get tested.
ok, I give up. It's like banging with my head against the wall.

> > First of all, note that I am also a maintainer of several packages, so I
> > suppose I don't fall in the "someone" category. Second of all, the bugs I
> > mentioned should _never_ happen, even in experimental. They require
> > trivial, really trivial and obvious tests. If what you're saing is that
> > people can fire and forget their packages without testing, then I dread
> > for the Debian's future.
> More FUD.
Sure, whatever you say.
> > > I think you have acted disrespectfully in handling this bug, and more so
> > > by trying to stir up more conflict on debian-devel.
> > I am not trying to stir anything. I have made notes about possible
> > inflammatory comments and I have made it clear that flame is not my
> > intention. Other posters seem to have noticed that, you seem to have
> > missed not only the whole point of the mail but also those notes I
> > mentioned.
> You took a truly trivial problem with a maintainer script and used it to
that's the keyword! _Trivial_ - haven't you noticed that yet that I was
calling for testing _trivial_ cases? Maybe now you will get the point of my
mail - I call for testing trivial cases, conducting trivial tests so that
trivial bugs don't make it into unstable. Do you understand that now? 

> start a prolonged rant on a public list.  Meanwhile, the bug that you
> complained about has been fixed, and you could get on with your own work.
Yes sir, I'm on my way.


Attachment: pgpBci9CH3Ovi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: