Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilisation procedure
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 08:04:17
Message-Id: 20161119090401.309dfe68.mgorny@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Stabilisation procedure by Michael Palimaka
1 On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:16:27 +1100
2 Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > ==== Runtime testing ====
5 >
6 > Consider the level of runtime testing that is required for the target
7 > package. Remember, the focus of stabilisation is to integrate a testing
8 > ebuild into the stable tree and not to identify routine bugs or
9 > regressions - that is the purpose of the package's waiting time in ~arch.
10 >
11 > The level of runtime testing required will vary wildly based on a
12 > variety of factors. Consider the following examples:
13 >
14 > * Multiple days of "normal use" testing may be appropriate for a new
15 > version of {{package|sys-libs/glibc}}
16 > * Basic functionality testing, such as browsing some web pages, may make
17 > sense for a new version of {{package|www-client/firefox}}
18 > * Passing tests might be enough for {{package|dev-python/yenc}}
19 > * A leaf package such as {{package|kde-apps/kcalc}} may not require any
20 > runtime testing at all
21
22 Could we maybe include some place (metadata.xml?) to state what is
23 the best way to test a package? I'm thinking it could include things
24 like:
25
26 - whether the test of the package are reliable,
27
28 - whether runtime testing is required and what kind of,
29
30 - how likely it is that revdeps need to be checked.
31
32 For example, in LLVM I would like to ask arch testers to always check
33 a few common clang calls.
34
35 --
36 Best regards,
37 Michał Górny
38 <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilisation procedure James Le Cuirot <chewi@g.o>
[gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilisation procedure Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o>