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

From: Henrik Hedberg henrik.hedberg at innologies.fi
Date: Tue Nov 3 21:36:04 EET 2009
Tim Teulings wrote:

>> 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. 

    Currently, we trust ten random testers rather than one well-known 

    Why could not we trust well-known developers who have track record 
of producing high-enough quality software? They may have their own 
methods for testing, like couple of active and skilful dedicated testers 
for the application domain. I see that more trustful than those random 
testers who vote subjectively based on their opinions of an user interface.

    We could have a group of accredited developers who have access to 
the Extras. They are committed to release only validated and verified 
packages. When a new developer wants to upload a package of his own, an 
accredited developer could sponsor him, i.e. act like a gatekeeper.

    Sounds familiar? See Debian New Maintainers Process [1].

    Another possibility is to have the team of accredited testers, who 
can make the final decision of their own. To become an accredited tester 
required commiting to write sane bug reports and to make decisions on 
generally agreed checks, among others. Then there would not be a need 
for ten random strangers and ten day delays.



[1] http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint.en.html

    Henrik Hedberg  -  http://www.henrikhedberg.net/
More information about the maemo-developers mailing list