Thanks again for actively working on this! I'd certainly like Robie to take a look at this upload as he was the one originally involved in handling the SRU. But a few of my second-opinion cents here.
With my SRU hat on, it's very difficult handling such huge new upstream release updates to our stable series. I do have some questions before I can actually formulate my own opinion here:
The issues mentioned to be caused by the 'buggy' version do seem to be high-impact, but from what I understand the application is still usable - is that correct? Because if it's not and the current issues are simply making the package unusable, that is certainly a different story. Many of our strict SRU rules are simply to guard from regressions. But in cases where the experience is anyway 'regressed', we can be a bit less strict for the good of everyone.
Looking at the source, it looks to me that there is quite a lot of unit-tests defined - are those being run during build time? How does the test coverage story for mixxx look like? Do all bugfixed/features come with unit-testing always?
Finally, if we decide to include this SRU in our stable series, the manual testing story will have to be improved. This is a lot of changes and just the tests mentioned in the [Test Case] currently are not enough in my opinion to verify if the upload is good to be released. First thing I'd recommend is: the upload links to 4 other bugs (as seen in the bug description here), so what I'd like seeing is getting all 4 of those updated for SRU purposed (i.e. adding all the needed information as per the SRU template [1]). Each of those would have to be verified separately anyway. Also, I'd propose adding some general-usage test cases to the Test Case here. Something to make sure that the application is still working.
Thanks again for actively working on this! I'd certainly like Robie to take a look at this upload as he was the one originally involved in handling the SRU. But a few of my second-opinion cents here.
With my SRU hat on, it's very difficult handling such huge new upstream release updates to our stable series. I do have some questions before I can actually formulate my own opinion here:
The issues mentioned to be caused by the 'buggy' version do seem to be high-impact, but from what I understand the application is still usable - is that correct? Because if it's not and the current issues are simply making the package unusable, that is certainly a different story. Many of our strict SRU rules are simply to guard from regressions. But in cases where the experience is anyway 'regressed', we can be a bit less strict for the good of everyone.
Looking at the source, it looks to me that there is quite a lot of unit-tests defined - are those being run during build time? How does the test coverage story for mixxx look like? Do all bugfixed/features come with unit-testing always?
Finally, if we decide to include this SRU in our stable series, the manual testing story will have to be improved. This is a lot of changes and just the tests mentioned in the [Test Case] currently are not enough in my opinion to verify if the upload is good to be released. First thing I'd recommend is: the upload links to 4 other bugs (as seen in the bug description here), so what I'd like seeing is getting all 4 of those updated for SRU purposed (i.e. adding all the needed information as per the SRU template [1]). Each of those would have to be verified separately anyway. Also, I'd propose adding some general-usage test cases to the Test Case here. Something to make sure that the application is still working.
[1] https:/ /wiki.ubuntu. com/StableRelea seUpdates# SRU_Bug_ Template