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

Thu Sep 8 22:12:26 CEST 2011

Op donderdag 08 september 2011 12:59:10 schreef Samuel Verschelde:
+> (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
+> - 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
+> 
+> Packager again:
+> - be ready to fix bugs : once you pushed a backport, you have to maintain
+> it until the distribution's end of life :)
+> 
+> Does this seem a good process, from the packager, QA and triage point of
+> view?
+> 
+> Best regards
+> 
+> Samuel Verschelde
+
+
+anything about i586 vs x86_64 ? ie: at least 2 tests? or not?
+
+at least updates is this way, iinm...
+