Reviewing Octave Forge packages: Difference between revisions

From Octave
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 28: Line 28:
</pre>
</pre>


== TODO: incorporate into above list ==
== Common problems ==


It would be good to document common problems that reviewers can check
Here are some common problems that reviewers can check for
for, things like


* INDEX is missing some new functions added
* INDEX is missing some new functions added

Revision as of 01:47, 15 March 2019

Help reviewing Octave-Forge packages

We need help. Here is how:

  1. Pick a package at https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/package-releases/
  2. Copy the check-list below and fill it out, marking each box:
    * `[x]` for passed
    * `[n/a]` for non-applicable
    * `[S]` for skipped (because you cannot do it, missing software, etc)
    * `[F]` for fails.
  1. Paste your filled in check-list as a coFeel free to helpmment on the issue above


Checklist

[ ] release candidate installed on latest Octave release
[ ] no compiler errors or serious warnings
[ ] ran all tests using runtests (including tests in the src dir)
[ ] ran doctest on all functions (optional)
[ ] Above steps were run on Octave versions:
     *  ________ [provide list]
[ ] Run generate_package_html
[ ] no makeinfo errors and warnings during HTML build
[ ] unpacked and spot-checked the generated HTML documentation
[ ] NEWS file makes sense, version and date match
[ ] All functions are listed in INDEX

Common problems

Here are some common problems that reviewers can check for

  • INDEX is missing some new functions added
  • NEWS has not been updated or is missing something big
  • Version numbers or dates do not match between DESCRIPTION and NEWS
  • Common makeinfo errors like "@bye seen before @end deftypefn"
  • DESCRIPTION says pkg works with old Octave 4.x but it fails for me
  • Obviously, compiler errors, warnings, test failures