[csw-maintainers] Release process for current (was: Re: Thematics month proposal)

[Philip Brown]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:32:08PM +0000, Gary Law wrote:
>    Dago wrote:
>    > There is no need for it to be handled internally.
>    > Explanations are given in www.opencsw.org:/home/newpkgs/README
> 
>    Not sure what you mean there, but http://opencsw.org/home/newpkgs/README
>    doesn't exist

The initial reference is a file reference, scp style, not a URL


>   ..., nor does [/export]/home/newpkgs/README on
>    login.bo.opencsw.org.

/home/newpkgs should not exist on login.bo.opencsw.org in the first place.
It's only supposed to exist on www.opencsw.org



>    > It's impossible to code checkpkg to cover "everything".
> 
>    This is not an argument against automated testing. Well, it is actually an
>    /argument/ against automated testing, but a really bad one.

no, it isnt an argument against automated testing. It's saying what it is
saying. no more, no less.  And it is reinforced by what you quoted from me,
lower down:

>> I tried to convey that we can reasonably cover, lets say, 80% of cases
>> through checkpkg, and 95% of cases via "written down", but there's always 
> going to be a grey area left.

that is to say, automated testing is nice, but it cannot cover everything
that needs to be covered.


>>But there will always be exceptoins.
>> At some point, there always comes a need for a human being to make a
>> decision of "yes this is acceptible/no this is not".
> 
>    I disagree. If something passes all the testing, why not release it?

What is your basis for disagreement? convenience on your part?

I will tell you what my basis for disagreeing with your statement right
there:
checkpkg was a lot simpler 4 years ago, and so were the written standards.
Lets say that we had gone with your exact premise 4 years ago.
We would not have gotten the improvements!

The primary way they have improved, is because I took the time to
personally take a glance at the packages, and sometimes noticed things that
werent being caught.
Then checkpkg, and/or the standards, got improved, when
appropriate.

There is a similar process in general AUTOMATED manufacturing of goods.
Things are for the most part, fully automated. Yet there are still QA
checks *by a human*, to see if any defects are slipping through still.



>    There is an interesting parallel with a discussion at my workplace just
>    this week. Some admins want to retain manual builds for much of the
>    software stack. I want to see everything that can be automated.

This is a different case. You may feel it is the same, because there is an
issue of "manual vs automated". But there are different core issues at
stake.

This is a matter of QA process, not build process.