Re: QA group best practice?
* Frank Lichtenheld (email@example.com) [030726 10:20]:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 02:31:17PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > I want to supply a patch to #202416 (developers-reference: mention QA in NMU
> > section). So I hunted around to find the list of best practices for QA
> > uploads that I could base my update on. But I can't find any. So, I'm
> > going to make some up.
> Cool, I thought about doing something similar yesterday :)
Yes, this is very helpfull. Can someone please put this list on a
> > * Ensure that the Maintainer field is set to "Debian QA Group
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org>".
> This doesn't differ from "real" NMUs, does it?
That here does.
> > * Make sure you keep the comments in the BTS up to date. If you're working
> > on a fix, say so. If you've got an upload in the pipeline, tag the bug
> > pending. This minimises duplicated effort, and keeps a record of work done
> > (as such, I think it's better than coordinating on -email@example.com, which was my
> > other possible suggestion).
> If you just begin working on a patch I would prefer "confirmed".
> I would use "pending" only for problems that are fixed but not uploaded.
IMHO it should be able to mark a package as "it is currently being
updated by one member of the QA-group". But this could perhaps be done
by mail to qa, whereas tackling single bugs is better done via marking
bugs as confirmed, pending or by mail to the bug log entry.
> What to do with the bugs after upload?> Should they stay "fixed", since
> it is some sort of NMU or should they be closed?
If you consider yourself as part of the QA-group (and especially are
reached by mail to qa) than this is IMHO a normal maintainer upload.
> > I'm planning on making a short speil on QA uploads to put into the
> > developers' reference to satisfy #202416. I'm more varied about putting the
> > full rulebook into the dev-ref. Should we give QA a higher priority by
> > putting more about it into DR, or should most of it stay on qa.debian.org?
> IMHO there should be something in the ref. At least the version
> numbering, the "QA Upload" and the Maintainer should go in. The
> PTS subscription is normal NMU stuff and the BTS handling could
> also an agreement between the people here.
IMHO it's important that with reading the DR a maintainer can get all
important information, either direct or via links to qa.d.o.
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C