Release Criteria

[George Staikos]

On November 14, 2002 14:56, Ian Reinhart Geiser wrote:
> > - All modules compile on the most common platforms we port to:
>
> This might be a problem, just because there are different configs. If we
> state the config though that causes KDE to build, then I am all for this.
>
> I know there are some issues with KDE on solaris 8 w/ gcc 2.95 that are
> gone with 3.2, but most installs still use gcc 2.95... so there may be some
> issues there.

   Hopefully we can come to a consensus on this, or at least have a few people 
provide their configs and results as a start and work on a table from there.

> > - KDE 2.2.x -> KDE 3.1.x upgrade is possible and relatively bug free
>
> Again, do we have an automated way to test this?

   Not really necessary.  It's too difficult to test thoroughly, but a bit of 
ad hoc testing will go a long way I think.  Test the big apps, test kicker, 
kcontrol, etc.

> Also dists to special things that may complicate this test.

  Yes but we don't care.  that's their job.

> > - KMail basic functionality is present
> >         - Requires approval from the KMail team for release.
> >
> > - No processes are left lying around on exit
>
> Makes sense, but again, there should be an automated way to test this. 
> Like a test script that will start up every KDE app and then exit it to see
> if its exited cleanly.

   I guess that could be done with the dcop scripting stuff.  Do I hear a 
volunteer? :)

> > - No broken signal/slot connections are present in application debug
> > output
>
> This again, should be automated like above.

   grep is good enough :)

> > - No background processes are crashing silently (kded, etc)
>
> How would we test this?  Are there testcases that cause these processes to
> crash?

   Hopefully none should cause them to crash.  We have had releases that 
crashed regularily in the background though.  2.2.x for some x was an 
offender, if I remember correctly.

> > - Each application installed should be tested for basic functionality.
> >         - CVS module maintainer should approve that each app works at
> > least minimally.
>
> This I think is key, id be willing to put up a simple php script that
> allowed each developer to sign off on their module before it was relelased.
>  This also should help us identify unmaintained code faster.

  I was hoping that the whole system would be setup online with at least some 
sort of web interface.  Otherwise it would be too difficult to coordinate.

> > - File permissions are correct
>
> Again we should have a script to test this.

  Yes.  I'm not too worried, but then again, some things might be difficult to 
test (for instance, suid binaries would have to be checked for individually).


-- 

George Staikos