[CentOS-devel] Re: testing / qa process
R P Herrold
herrold at owlriver.com
Thu Oct 19 22:30:47 UTC 2006
> Karanbir Singh wrote as to:
>> The strategy to release testable rpms to dev.centos.org
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Instead of blocking on (lack-of) feedback, I'd suggest
> considering something like:
> 1. Put pkgs in "testing"
> 2. If no bugs reported after X days/weeks, move out of
> At least this way nothing gets perpetually stalled in testing.
Yikes. To torture the truism, 'An absence of evidence is not
evidence of an absence' of problems.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but how is automatic
promotion out of 'testing' into a chain _desireable_ in an
enterprise oriented operating environment?
Clearly some so called 'admin's' will clearly implicitly trust
anything (ie., look at the constant traffic into mailing lists
for distributions where 'yum' is an available updater with
horrific collections of random archives enabled). Why take
the reputational risk here?
It may be proper for Red Hat's Fedora, as it has evolved (the
firestorms I see regularly erupt on fedora-devel make me doubt
this, but ... those participating there without an @redhat.com
available to them are all volunteers), but not here. Putting
aside stability or security issues, something as simple as
added support load makes me want to avoid anything with an
'official' CentOS addon status. The 'Enemies of Carlotta'
missed conflict thread I saw today reaffirms my doubt that
auto-promotion works based on _assumed_ safety.
My solution, as to my archive of packagings, is simple -- Very
general SRPM's exist, and a person who cannot solve a build
environment and BuildRequires, (which is documented at my
site, along with several other sites which I have contributed
to over the years) is probably not going to use my packagings.
When I get a report, I address it. I do not undertake to
warrant to any anonymous FTP user, any ongoing (nor even
present) security, functionality, or other pedigree to the
packagings. Indeed, I have marked certain unsafe ones as I
have re-encountered them. This makes the maintenance load
I have worked on outlines thinking through some of the issues,
on building a trustable, and 'vetted' submitted package
infrastructure a couple of times. All of the plans fall apart
on the relatively low reward for testing compared with the
rather high and ongoing load of doing it 'right' and safely.
Before the divergence of cAos and CentOS we were discussing
and earlier, before Red Hat's takeover of fedora.us, I had
posted this into fedora.us's former mailing lists (the former
mailing list host: videl.ics.hawaii.edu no longer responds) :
[That latter document provoked Warren for what I considered
In part CentOS works because it has limited itself to being a
relatively strict rebuild effort.
-- Russ Herrold
More information about the CentOS-devel