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

Fri Sep 9 07:43:12 CEST 2011

Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
+> Le jeudi 8 septembre 2011 21:16:50, Florian Hubold a écrit :
+>> 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
+
+It would be a good idea to require giving the reason why refused, for clarity. 
+  (e.g. "Don't intend to maintain" or "Will conflict with version 123 of xyz", 
+or whatever.)
+
+>>>>
+>>>> 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?
+>
+> In my opinion this is what a packager should always do, be it for an update, a
+> backport, or a package in cauldron. But this doesn't remove the need for a QA
+> validation if we want to guarantee a minimal level of quality.
+
+Agree - that should always be done.  QA is there to find what the packager 
+might have missed.
+
+It seems an excellent backport policy - the weak link being the backport 
+packager having to commit to support for the life of the release -- even though 
+we can't garantie that it will be the case, that is a good requirement.
+
+>
+> Samuel
+>
+
+-- 
+André
+