Am 08.09.2011 13:08, schrieb Colin Guthrie:
'Twas brillig, and Samuel Verschelde at 08/09/11 11:59 did gyre and gimble:
(QA Team and Triage team in CC, but please answer only to
mageia-dev@mageia.org)
I was asked to define a process for backports validation, so here is a
proposal. We can discuss it a few days and then I'll add the result to the
backports policy page.
Process for backports :
Triage:
- identify backport requests
- add "Backport Request: " in the bug report summary
- add the "backport" keyword
- assign to maintainer
The maintainer can refuse to do the backport :
- doesn't want to maintain it => assign the bug report back to
bugsq...@mageia.org so that another packager can step in
- has a good reason for not providing this backport (policy, possible
breakage...) => close as wontfix
Packager:
- create bug report if not done already
- submit to {core,nonfree,tainted}/backports_testing
Is this straight from the cauldron tree in subversion?
- find a tester : original bug reporter when there is one, yourself if there's
none, or ask in forums/irc/MLs...
- once tested by at least one person (it must be said explicitly in the bug
report), hand it to QA :
- make sure the bug report summary starts with "Backport Request: " or
"Backport Candidate:"
- add the "backport" keyword if missing
- assign to qa-b...@ml.mageia.org
- list the source RPMs if there are several
- be ready to fix bugs and answer QA team questions
QA:
- test backports the same way that we test updates. But don't forget that
updates have a higher priority than that of backports.
- move the packages from backports_testing to backports
Just from a man power perspective this, could be a lot of work for QA
(even at lower priority) but I cannot see a way to improve this without
sacrificing quality control!
If the packager himself does basic testing and makes sure backport works,
that would relieve QA from some work, no?
