| 1 |
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 00:02 +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: |
| 2 |
> While I too might have some interest in developing particularly the scientific |
| 3 |
> packages, Donnie's comment made me to wonder whether the idea of "support teams" |
| 4 |
> (cf. arch testers) was buried? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Becoming an arch tester is (I think) still possible, and a sci tester is |
| 7 |
definitely possible. You need to answer the ebuild development quiz. |
| 8 |
People interested should read the pointers mentioned in a previous email |
| 9 |
of this thread, and mail me or sci@g.o. so we can gather all requests. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> I think this idea that was mentioned in the previous thread would be especially |
| 12 |
> suitable for the sci-team and its packages that often require, besides the normal |
| 13 |
> ebuild practices, some special expertise to carry out full runtime testing. Or would |
| 14 |
> these teams just mean extra work for the actual developers? Will a presumably small |
| 15 |
> community using the scientific packages need this kind of an extra layer? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Possible ways to have some tests procedures: |
| 18 |
- bugzilla: add the test procedure to an existing new package bug, or |
| 19 |
file a new bug properly assigned to the herd mentioned in the ebuild |
| 20 |
metadata.xml. |
| 21 |
- overlay: write test procedures, just as the emacs project did [1] |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I will see with overlay.g.o staff if we can open our overlay wiki to the |
| 24 |
gentoo science community and make it a more general wiki. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Sébastien |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
[1] http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/emacs |
Archives