Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2016-08-14

[NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1513 bytes --]

On 08/05/2016 02:45 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 08/05/2016 08:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>>>>> Ultimately, I think we need some form of automated stabilization, e.g.
>>>>>> if a package version sits in ~ for 30 days and there are no blockers at
>>>>>> that point, the new version should go automatically to stable on all
>>>>>> architectures where there is a previous stable version.
>>>>
>>>> I LOUDLY disagree. The stable tree should not be compromised by such
>>>> automation, it is already bad enough without proper use-testing in some
>>>> cases. Stable isn't only about building properly.
>> and that's why we don't commit straight to stable. people are supposed
>> to be testing those ~arch versions for a while before they go stable.
>> That testing should cover the use cases you are talking about and work
>> out the bugs. Once that's done, we should be able to move the package to
>> stable.
> 
> It was recently a discussion in #-dev that could help on this, the
> automation can't be only build-testing, but if writing usage-tests
> (protocol, interface access testing etc for servers etc) automation
> would indeed be helpful.
> 

Isn't the src_test phase psuedo runtime testing?  I'm not sure that us
developing test suites for upstreams is a good use of our time.  I mean,
yes, it would improve the upstream projects where they accept it (which
is good for all), but I feel it detracts from what Gentoo developers are
doing (for Gentoo)

-- 
NP-Hardass


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]