[CentOS-devel] New QA / Testing potential

Wed May 28 15:42:17 UTC 2008
Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org>

Tim Verhoeven wrote:
> I actually promised to do this a while ago. So having time now here at
> LinuxTag I did finaly write up what I had in mind. The proposal is
> here "http://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/TestingRepo". It is probably only
> accessable for people in the QA team or people having admin rights.
> But I think for the discussion about the proposal itself this should
> be ok. If not let me know and I move it.

The proposal looks good, but apart from the 3 week cutoff ( which would 
lead to the death of the testing repo ), its about the same as what we 
have in place right now. And we all know that the process isnt working.

I think what we need to do is setup some form of expectations and layout 
details on what functionality needs tested, how and where. And the 
responsibility for laying those down should be on the person requesting 
or pushing the packages. In the current scenario where we just ask 
people to go test something, they dont have any clear idea as to what 
they are looking for, and there is no way that would sync with the 
expectations of the packager / pusher / requestor.

Perhaps what we need is a page on the wiki that gives the name and 
details of the package, who is responsible for it now, and how is going 
to maintain it going further, and a list of issues / tests that need to 
be done on those packages. People can then tick the box's indicating 
they have tested those bits, along with some feedback if they have any. 
Just having a list of things to look againt and a box to tick Pass / 
Fail would be good.

> I've also made a list in that proposal about what to do with the
> current pacakges in the testing repo.

I dont agree with the 'Action to take' for a large number of packages 
there. eg. why should cft and facter be deleted ? and smolt is a part of 
the cobbler + func + smolt admin stack, and should stay together.

The biggest issue, as far as I can see it, is communitcation itself.

- KB