Concerns about module quality

[Auke Kok]

Stefan Wold wrote:

>Hey guys.
>
>I'm in whine mood right now and really have to release some of the 
>pressure I've built up over quite some time. The last months the quality 
>of commits have been rather low and we can't have it like this anymore. 
>First of all we get angry users, I know that some of you don't care, but I 
>do. Secondly it pisses me off too having to fix my boxes because someone 
>didn't bother to thouroghly test their update.
>
>This is my suggestion, it's time we start doing some quality assurance of 
>"core" modules, such as Bash, Glibc, Xorg, Linux-PAM, expat etc etc. Make 
>sure they build on different kernel/glibc/gcc combinations, or at least with 
>the latest moonbase. That include both 2.4 and 2.6 
>kernel headers! Also before they are allowed to be commited at least 2-3 
>developers should have tested and approved the update. This will of course 
>be a little more work for us, but I'm just talking about a list of 
>core modules that always have to be tested with this procedure, not the 
>whole moonbase because even I know that is impossible with the amount of 
>developers we have today.
>
>If you approve to this idea I suggest we start doing a list of core 
>modules that has to go through this kind of testing.
>

take the *.list from the lunar-iso svn build code, it contains all 
necessary modules to do the basic required stuff (about 130 modules 
total) including shadow, pam, coreutils, all kernels, and the most vital 
driver components.

http://svn.foo-projects.org/svn/lunar/lunar-iso/trunk/conf/

allthough this doesn't involve XOrg, it does contain everything to fix 
an XOrg issue etc, so it's definately the minimum for such a list.

Auke