On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 02:27:54PM +0100, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> how about testing automatic dist-upgrades like stable->testing?
I love this idea: as a maintainer is quite a burden to take care of
this, a massive testing effort would help a lot of DDs out there!
> of course this is not trivial as we want to run this in a
> noninteractive/preseeded fashion, but better than nothing :)
I don't see this as the major problem to tackle (but still a problem).
I'm more worried about how you choose the environment you want to
dist-upgrade. Various criteria that come to my mind (braindump):
- base system only (pro: easy to set up, cons: tests a too small set of
package)
- \forall task, base system + 1 task (pro: still easy to set up, tests a
lot more packages, I guess all tasks taken together are a fair share
of the packages in the archive, cons: do not upgrade issues induced by
inter-task relationships)
- base system + a set of random selected packages (pro: easy to set up,
tests inter-task issues, cons: non-idempotent, i.e. not easy to
reproduce, no guarantees/idea about how much of the testing domain has
been effectively tested)
Cheers
PS hello world, from a QA team newcomer :)
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature