[maemo-developers] extras-testing and WONTFIX ?

[From: Andrew Flegg]

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 22:02, Matan Ziv-Av <matan at svgalib.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Attila Csipa wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking through some extras-testing scenarios... What happens if an
>> issue is marked as a blocker, but the developer says it's a WONTFIX, fixed in
>> Harmattan or similar ? If we play by the book, the app is stuck in testing and
>> everybody looses - users won't get a potentially interesting app, the
>> developer doesn't get karma/fame/device/whatever... so not good no matter how
>> you put it. Obviously, if it's really a QA blocker, we don't want to expose
>> users to it. On the other hand, we can't (and shouldn't) push developers doing
>> what they think is not right. So... any takes what the (general) right course
>> of action would be for such stuck applications (apart from the obvious lose-
>> lose scenario) ?

The QA criteria aren't very stringent and can be summed up as "play
nice, don't waste battery, try to use /opt". Any package which gets 10
thumbs up can be promoted. So, in your hypothetical case, a if the
developer won't fix a bug but 10 people still think it's worthy of
going into Extras, the developer will have that opportunity.

> Such programs will be available in external repositories. Hopefully
> there will be a collective repository including a large percent of the
> software (like extras repository in diablo). If not, then there will be
> many small repositories as it was before the drive to get everything
> into extras.

This "collective repository" does exist, and is called extras-testing.
Suggesting we go back to the realms of multiple repositories (and
hinting that this'd be a good thing) shows a serious lack of
understanding as to the problems it can (and did!) cause.

> If many developers will not bother with extras, and Nokia will be
> unhappy about it, they will have to change the rules.

Nokia didn't set the rules. The community did, through open discussion
on the mailing lists. If you have a problem with the rules, or the
process, raise concrete objections on the mailing list rather than
muttering darkly.

No-one is precious about the process as it is; and no-one is
conspiring to keep good and useful software away from users. If anyone
has a better solution to the requirements (or even questions the
requirements themselves), *please* raise them.

Cheers,

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew at bleb.org  |  http://www.bleb.org/