| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 20:49:02 +1300 Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:55:27 +0300 |
| 4 |
>> Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> > <testing> |
| 7 |
>> > Description how to test this package... |
| 8 |
>> > </testing> |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Alternatively, why not have a metatag that just |
| 11 |
>> permits a valid URL that points to testing instructions? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Sounds good, as long as it is not mandatory, so if dev wants to put |
| 14 |
> instructions in this block (e.g. they are small or can't be shared |
| 15 |
> with other packages). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Well, test instructions would never be mandatory, and if you wanted to |
| 19 |
recycle them I think the best move is to put them on the wiki and just |
| 20 |
post the URL in metadata. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The advantage here would be that automated tools would know where to |
| 23 |
find them. Maybe one day they could be auto-linked in bugs, |
| 24 |
integrated into some keywording non-bugzilla tool, into portage/gatt, |
| 25 |
and so on. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives