[maemo-developers] RFC: Proposal to solve multiple repository, poor QA situation

[From: Jussi Kukkonen]

Andrew,

Thanks for the comprehensive proposal, nice to see some thought put into
this. I don't fully agree with you, though. Here are my objections:

* Proposal tries to solve two different problems: repository QA and
  maintainer helper tools. Both are important, but solutions might not
  be the same, and solution to one should not wait for solution to
  the other.

* Signing and sources: a package should be signed by the person building
  it. Otherwise the meaning ("I personally guarantee this package has
  been built from these sources") is lost. Source packages should
  definitely be included.


I'm not commenting on the maintainer helper tools and services here
(other than to say that the popcon idea is really good): they're no
doubt important, but I don't think they should be tied to repo QA --
both issues are complicated enough on their own.


About repository QA: I see these as the gatekeeper team tasks (in order
of importance):
  * maintain a "Extras QA requirements" document (see e.g.
    http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html),
  * communicate those requirements to maintainers and
  * enforce the requirements if needed -- either check packages before
    they're pushed to Extras or start with checking packages post-upload

None of these require much automated tools in the beginning (especially
if we get started with post-upload QA) -- I imagine the gatekeeper team
will only find out what they need by trying. Full testing coverage is
not needed either: the maintainers still have QA responsibility,
gatekeepers are just double-checking.

 Some software will be needed when gatekeepers decide to start doing the
QA before new packages get to extras. The design of that package queue
should probably be left to whoever implements it (if something usable
does not exist already). As I see it, maintainers should upload to
garage.maemo.org and gatekeepers should "approve" on garage.maemo.org. I
don't see why other servers need to be involved, I assume Nokia is quite
willing to co-operate here.

> if Nokia are planning on any form of improvement to the extras
> process, based on the recent discussions, there is no point wasting
> time on this. Clarification of Nokia's position on this would be
> appreciated.

Yep. Mishas devel-mover is interesting and it would be good to know if
there's already some development going on regarding e.g. the package
queue we've talked about (or if Nokia may be willing to develop
something like that if the hypothetical gatekeeper team asks).

 Jussi
-- 
Jussi Kukkonen