Re: proving a bug is gone

[Adam Di Carlo <apharris@burrito.onshore.com>]

In article <19981108203159.A6149@test.legislate.com>, Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com> writes:
> Adam Di Carlo <apharris@burrito.onshore.com> wrote:
>> Raul has suggested to add test cases to debian/rules to certify
>> that a bug is gone. As much as I think our documentation should
>> encourage maintainers to write test cases, I believe this puts
>> undue stress on package maintainers. Moreover, if we do not have
>> the cooperation of the upstream maintainers, writing test cases is
>> going to be very difficult (they are generally very sensitive to
>> minor changes in the code).

> We can always put test cases in a debian/tests/ directory, if that
> is important to the upstream maintainers.

>> The debian-testing group is actually working on this issue as well,
>> someone should liase with them.

> Agreed.  But I'm at a loss here -- I don't see a debian-testing
> mailing list, and I don't see any testing links off of the
> developer's corner of the web site.

Yeah, well, I'll CC them here (naughty of me to cross-post, I know).
Maybe the list maintainer can clue you in.  To be honest, it *should*
be a normal, first class, archive-browsable list.  There's no reason
why it isn't; <debian-testing> is not a cabal.  :)

>> But again, my personal opinion is that it would be a *mistake* to
>> require certification that a bug is closed before uploading a fix.
>> Take my case; I maintain MH; it is totally un-maintained upstream
>> and obsoletely by nmh. My maintenance principle is to take the path
>> of least resistance when fixing bugs; sometimes, even, I just
>> forward them to the (dormant) upstream maintainers and just suggest
>> to the bug submitter that active development should be directed
>> towards nmh, not MH. Now, why should policy suddenly tell me I'm
>> wrong to do this?

> Er.. you're saying that you're marking the bug as fixed when it's
> only been forwarded upstream?  That's a different state than closed,
> isn't it?

Yes.  But it's like saying, "I wash my hands of this bug". ;)

> I agree though that if we had a policy of creating tests for
> packages that we'd need the bug tracking system to have a "closed
> except for a way to test it" state.  And, I don't think that bugs in
> that state should hold up a release.

Raul, I really think the proof is in the pudding.  If you can help
shape a working, easy enough to manage test suite, and start filling
that in (even, just start with base packages), we'll be able to look
at it from there and decide if there's a policy to be written or not.

.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-testing-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org