Re: QA Upload best practices, 2nd draft
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 02:06:22PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matthew Palmer <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2004-07-18 19:59]:
> > what's going on. Setting the owner of the bug to you (not the submitter!)
> "Setting the owner of the bug (not the submitter!) to you" makes it
> clearer that you're not setting the submitter as owner.
Much clearer wording. Fixed.
> > * In most aspects of preparing a QA upload, follow NMU policy. Things like
> > ensuring your changes are as minimal as possible, and testing your changes
> I disagree with this. QA uploads are like regular maintainer uploads,
> so anything (e.g. new upstream versions) goes.
Would you encourage people to rewrite the packaging method used (eg convert
from dh_ to cdbs) in a QA upload? I'm thinking that, apart from fixing
hideous bletcherisms of past maintainers (such as making upstream-available
packages Debian-native) we would want to avoid major surgery like this.
Especially if you have several different QA people with different
preferences as to build system -- every few uploads the build system changes
I'd imagine it'd be unlikely to happen, though -- if only because nobody in
QA (TTBOMK) has the time to go rewriting packaging on a regular basis.
Since the range of things that are OK to do in a QA upload is expanding,
certainly it shouldn't be "most aspects". I'll rewrite it to be more