Re: QA group best practice?
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 11:14:12AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 02:31:17PM +1000, Matthew Palmer ?crivait:
> > 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.
> >
> > * All changelogs should start with an entry "QA Upload".
>
> Not really needed. This can be deduced from the maintainer field beeing
> set to debian-qa.
But what about when someone adopts the package? I think it'd be useful to
be able to quickly go back to a previous release and say "aah, that was a
release made while it was orphaned".
Assuming the rest of the changelog entries are correct, you could deduce it
was QA by the previous "orphaned" and subsequent "new maintainer" entries.
I just think it's a nice, easy identification method.
> > * Subscribe (at least temporarily) to the PTS list for the package after the
> > upload, in case your upload causes severe haemmhoraging.
>
> Not really needed ... it's too much for a package which has no
> maintainer. There are people who are receiving the bugs and who aren't
> MIA and who will notice that there's a problem.
You don't think a 1-2 week subscription would be a good idea? There's
always the possibility that you might have b0rked something ($deity knows
I've mucked it up once or twice). You can use 'at' to auto-unsubscribe
after a while.
> > * 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
>
> This is not specific to QA ... it's common sense. :)
Well yes, but the thing about common sense is that it's so uncommon. <g>
> > 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
>
> There's no full rulebook, just try to be short and on the point. And put
> it in devel-ref.
Mmmmkay. The devel-ref will never look the same again...
- Matt
Reply to: