Re: what about an special QA package priority?
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Luciano Bello wrote:
> - It should be checked with debugging tools (like valgrind :P)
> - It should a public VCS
These should be encouraged, and in the cases where packages aren't in
a public VCS or QAed properly before upload, the deficiencies should
be politely pointed out and maintainers encouraged to rectify.
> - It should maintained by a team
Team maintenance doesn't automatically make a package better.[1]
Furthermore, I don't believe there are many (possibly any!) packages
in Debian where the package is "important" and the current maintainer
wouldn't accept help. [And if there are, that's a problem which we can
deal with on a case-by-case basis.]
> - Its patches should be sign-off by reviewers (Raphael Hertzog (hertzog@)
> proposed something like this)
There isn't enough manpower to do this. While more review is good,
blocking development and bug fixing to wait on review is just not
sustainable and scalable. [It's not like it's hard for people to
interdiff diff.gz's now and see what has changed in each patch; only a
few people not directly involved with the package appear to be doing
this.]
That said, it'd be wonderfull for multiple people to prove me wrong by
reviewing all of the patches in base and above, and keep up with the
development of those packages while doing so. But I'm not going to
hold my breath for it; and we shouldn't hamstring development for it
either.
Don Armstrong
1: It basically boils down to a problem of manpower; see various other
threads which have gone over this in the past.
--
A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless.
-- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: