SRU MOTU Upload Checklist

[Scott Kitterman]

On Tuesday 23 October 2007 08:07, Emmet Hikory wrote:
> Brandon Holtsclaw wrote:
> > Since it seems there has been a bit of confusion over just exactly what
> > needs to be done "pre-upload" to -proposed I suggest the folloing list be
> > added to the upload step of the wiki and become official policy so there
> > is no confusion about -proposed uploads. This list comes after a
> > disscussion in #ubuntu-motu just prior to this email if you all care to
> > look back at the logs about how we came up with this list and why ( very
> > boring really )
> >
> > "Patch applies"
> > "Result builds"
> > "package upgrades cleanly"
> > "application runs"
> > "reported issue cannot be reproduced"
> > "package uninstalls cleanly"
> > "package purges cleanly".
>
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I would add:
> >
> > "No regression in the functionality being patched."
> >
> > This doesn't mean regressions are OK, but that regression testing around
> > the change is required.
>
>     I'll suggest that this is not always obvious.  While I agree it is
> expected that the person working on the SRU should perform some level
> of testing, including ensuring that the application follows expected
> behaviour, I am not convinced that a developer workstation is the
> ideal environment to ensure there is no regression from the change,
> and that proper regression testing will benefit from a wider audience.
>
>     In short, the developer should test some, but shouldn't be shot
> because a regression is later discovered (especially for alternate
> architectures, specialised hardware, etc.)

Agreed.  I think one is required to try, but that success isn't always 
guaranteed.

Scott K