[Mageia-dev] Backports process (addendum to policy)

Thu Sep 8 21:16:50 CEST 2011

Am 08.09.2011 13:08, schrieb Colin Guthrie:
+> 'Twas brillig, and Samuel Verschelde at 08/09/11 11:59 did gyre and gimble:
+>> (QA Team and Triage team in CC, but please answer only to
+>> mageia-dev at mageia.org)
+>>
+>> I was asked to define a process for backports validation, so here is a
+>> proposal. We can discuss it a few days and then I'll add the result to the
+>> backports policy page.
+>>
+>> Process for backports :
+>>
+>> Triage:
+>> - identify backport requests
+>> - add "Backport Request: " in the bug report summary
+>> - add the "backport" keyword
+>> - assign to maintainer
+>>
+>> The maintainer can refuse to do the backport :
+>> - doesn't want to maintain it =>  assign the bug report back to
+>> bugsquad at mageia.org so that another packager can step in
+>> - has a good reason for not providing this backport (policy, possible
+>> breakage...) =>  close as wontfix
+>>
+>> Packager:
+>> - create bug report if not done already
+>> - submit to {core,nonfree,tainted}/backports_testing
+> Is this straight from the cauldron tree in subversion?
+>
+>> - find a tester : original bug reporter when there is one, yourself if there's
+>> none, or ask in forums/irc/MLs...
+>> - once tested by at least one person (it must be said explicitly in the bug
+>> report), hand it to QA :
+>>    - make sure the bug report summary starts with "Backport Request: " or
+>> "Backport Candidate:"
+>>    - add the "backport" keyword if missing
+>>    - assign to qa-bugs at ml.mageia.org
+>>    - list the source RPMs if there are several
+>> - be ready to fix bugs and answer QA team questions
+>>
+>> QA:
+>> - test backports the same way that we test updates. But don't forget that
+>> updates have a higher priority than that of backports.
+>> - move the packages from backports_testing to backports
+> Just from a man power perspective this, could be a lot of work for QA
+> (even at lower priority) but I cannot see a way to improve this without
+> sacrificing quality control!
+If the packager himself does basic testing and makes sure backport works,
+that would relieve QA from some work, no?
+