Le mercredi 08 juin 2011 à 20:39 +0300, Ahmad Samir a écrit : > On 8 June 2011 18:57, Christiaan Welvaart <c...@daneel.dyndns.org> wrote:
> > So who decides to reject an update and at what point? According to your > > proposal, either QA people decide this or they waste time on updates that > > later get rejected. > > > > IMHO, rejection reasons: > - The sec team doesn't think the update fixes a serious security > vulnerability; so it's not updates but backports I would say that there is no version upgrade, unless exception. > - The QA team couldn't validate, i.e. using the test case in the bug > report, their test results didn't show that the bug is fixed Yup. Or someone detected a regression. ( like 'I installed foo-1.0-1 but it opened a dimensional vortex to hell', as it happened on the QA testing facility of Phobos in Doom ) > >> - QA manage the checks, and so will requires help ( hence the security > >> team or any packager can help, provided they know how to do QA ) > > > > So a packager wants to fix a bug in package that is not very visible, sends > > it to QA, then has to test it anyway? I'm not sure what you're saying here. > > > > Not the packager committing the fix, (if he doesn't think it's fixed > he won't ask for an update to begin with). Yup :) > But the QA team, this team > could/should have packagers in it. Or someone could help by doing QA and saying "so far, I see no regression", or just saying "I see regression" before some more experienced QA member do the test. -- Michael Scherer