[maemo-developers] QA process = bug fixing disincentive?

From: Tim Teulings rael at edge.ping.de
Date: Tue Nov 3 20:25:43 EET 2009

> Except how do you try to prevent abuse (whether intentional or
> accidental)? At least with the version number you've got some safety
> check (although it is in no way comprehensive). It also requires more
> changes at more levels (I bet), so harder to implement.

I think it is time to decide (again?) if we trust developers in their
atempt to get their software/package into extras or not. 

There are some points in the decussion about handling of extras-testing
extras propagation for which we should find a simple solution for - once we
have finally (for some time ;-)) decided about trust.

It looks to me that currently we are randomly hopping form the "trust" to
the "as stable as possible" road back and forth and have to discuss/find
(implicitely) the road we are on for every sub problem again and again.

We likely agree that either extreme is not good for different reasons, but
we havn't a clear definition for the middle way either (it is dark out
there even in the night on the highway). We defined some criteria for
extras which I find astonishly lax in some parts (but since I likely will
have advantages for my software because of this I will not complain ;-))
and on the other hand sometimes it looks like we are defining fort knox.

Perhaps we have different definitions for the trust and stability of one
package and 
trust and stability of the repository in whole (breaking dependencies
etc...) but then lets clearify that. Breaking a package is not nice but not
really a drama for the community, breaking the repository or large parts of
it will be a far bigger problem.

(Perhaps we should also define what we expect the average user to be able
to handle. Since such assumptions have consequences, too).

Again: What is our vision for extras?

P.S.: Don't trust my version numbers! Trust my checkbox choice!

More information about the maemo-developers mailing list