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

[andre999]

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