Reviewing Octave Forge packages: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎Checklist: Review list
(Overhaul page.)
(→‎Checklist: Review list)
Line 15: Line 15:


<pre>
<pre>
== Repository ==
# Repository
[ ] maintainer has specified a corresponding revision commit/changeset
[ ] checkout code from Sourceforge, commit/changeset is present


== Compile and Install ==
- [ ] maintainer has specified a corresponding revision commit/changeset
[ ] release candidate installs on latest stable Octave release
- [ ] checkout code from Sourceforge, commit/changeset is present
[ ] no compiler errors or warnings
[ ] ran tests using <code>runtests /path/to/pkg</code> (use <code>oruntests</code> instead in Octave 6.0.0 or later)
[ ] ran all tests, including those in src (how??)
[ ] ran doctest on all functions (optional)
[ ] ran generate_package_html (if Makefile present try <code> make html </code>)
[ ] no makeinfo errors and warnings during HTML build
[ ] unpacked and spot-checked the generated HTML documentation


== Interaction with pkg ==
# Compile and Install
[ ] <code>pkg load foo</code> runs with errors or warnings
[ ] <code>pkg unload foo</code> runs with errors or warnings
[ ] <code>pkg uninstall foo</code> runs with errors or warnings


[ ] Above steps were run on Octave and OS versions:
- [ ] release candidate installs on latest stable Octave release
    *  ________
- [ ] no compiler errors or warnings
    *  ________
- [ ] ran tests using <code>runtests /path/to/pkg</code> (use <code>oruntests</code> instead in Octave 6.0.0 or later)
- [ ] ran all tests, including those in src (how??)
- [ ] ran doctest on all functions (optional)
- [ ] ran generate_package_html (if Makefile present try <code> make html </code>)
- [ ] no makeinfo errors and warnings during HTML build
- [ ] unpacked and spot-checked the generated HTML documentation


== Package files in release candidate tarball ==
# `pkg`-tool runs without errors or warnings
[ ] tested with minimum Octave version list in DESCRIPTION
[ ] reasonable dependencies listed in DESCRIPTION
[ ] NEWS file makes sense, version and date match
[ ] All functions are listed in INDEX
[ ] check licenses (<code>licensecheck -r</code> "plus some manual checks").
[ ] package files are readable/executable by all users (reasonably current maintainer Makefile should be doing this).
[ ] version number in src/configure.ac (if present) matches DESCRIPTION and tarball name.
[ ] any version numbers within the help or function body (e.g., banners) matches above.
[ ] contains no hidden dot files, junk backup files, results of configure runs, etc (should be taken care of by maintainer Makefile).
</pre>


=== Common problems ===
- [ ] `pkg load      foo`
- [ ] `pkg unload    foo`
- [ ] `pkg uninstall foo`
- [ ] Above steps were run on Octave and OS versions:
      -  ________
      -  ________


Here are some common problems that reviewers can check for
# Package files in release candidate tarball


* INDEX is missing some new functions added
- [ ] `DESCRIPTION` version updated
* NEWS has not been updated or is missing something big
- [ ] `DESCRIPTION` minimum Octave tested
* Version numbers or dates do not match between DESCRIPTION and NEWS
- [ ] `DESCRIPTION` all dependencies are listed
* Common makeinfo errors like "@bye seen before @end deftypefn"
- [ ] `NEWS` version and date match
* DESCRIPTION says pkg works with old Octave 4.x but it fails for me
- [ ] `NEWS` big changes announced
* Obviously, compiler errors, warnings, test failures
- [ ] `INDEX` all (new) functions are listed
- [ ] version numbers in help text and function body (e.g., banners) updated
- [ ] license specifications in help text and function body agree `licensecheck -r`
- [ ] file permissions are readable/executable by all users
- [ ] junk files are removed (hidden dot files, backup files, results of configure runs, etc.)
- [ ] (optional if present) `src/configure.ac` version updated
</pre>


[[Category:Octave Forge]]
[[Category:Octave Forge]]

Navigation menu