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

[Gary Law]

2009/1/20 Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>

> 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


OK, I have to say it hadn't occurred to me that I could ssh in... but I can!
However, as far as I can tell the file isn't there:
$ scp www.opencsw.org:/home/newpkgs/README .
scp: /home/newpkgs/README: No such file or directory



> >    > 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.


Perhaps I'd have a better idea if you could explain what needs to be covered
that's not automatable?



> >>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?


convenience? perhaps a little, there's nothing wrong with that. But much
more importantly consistency and transparency.


> 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.
>

what we do is much more analogous to software development than
manufacturing. And in software development automating QA is at the heart of
most processes that seek to be support frequent, consistent, high quality
releases. Manual QA is seen as a necessary evil for those things that
haven't /yet/ been automated. We still need human beings -- users and
maintainers --  to feed back problems that aren't caught in the automated
tests, so we can improve them.



> >    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.
>

Yes. But at the moment both build and QA are very manual, I'd like to see
them be automated.

You don't address the points concerning only having one gatekeeper on
releases or on the use of individual discretion in this reply. I hope this
means you're having second thoughts.

Regards

Gary



-- 
Gary Law
Email: garylaw at garylaw.net
Chat googletalk/messenger: gary.law at gmail.com
iChat/jabber/AIM: gary.law at mac.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20090120/09faeb0b/attachment.html>