Re: QA expectations (Was: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH)
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 05:19:23PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Let me briefly hijack the discussion for a side note. ;)
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > NMUers should do debdiff - no matter what change was done. And yes, it
> > happened also to me in the past once or twice that I uploaded an empty
> > package or package missing some files. I do not remember whether it was
> > connected to a change to dh or not ... but mistakes happen. The fact
> > that we might end up with broken NMUs is IMHO orthogonal to any cdbs to
> > dh change.
>
> After a failure, we tend to bash uploaders:
> * Why didn't they look at the debdiff?
> * Why didn't they run piuparts?
> * Why didn't they run lintian?
Not running lintian before uploading to unstable shouldn't happen.
> * Why didn't they run autopkgtest?
> * Why didn't they do an arch-only/indep-only build?
> * Why didn't they test their package?
> * ...
>
> The things you have to remember before doing an upload are insane.
>...
"Check that your changes are working" is pretty basic and sane.
If the only change was fixing a missing dependency, check that the built
binary package actually has the correct dependency added.
If you rewrote the whole build system, check that the built packages
still have the same contents and still work.
If you are trying to fix a build failure on an architecture,
make a testbuild on a porterbox instead of 10 uploads to unstable.
>...
> People shouldn't have to remember all the QA. QA should just work and
> QA should tell people about the (unusual) failures.
>...
QA is good for finding some kinds of common problems.
But it is not a replacement for people being careful when making changes.
> Helmut
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: