Reviewing Octave Forge packages

From Octave
Revision as of 18:55, 30 September 2020 by Siko1056 (talk | contribs) (Overhaul page.)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Info icon.svg
More than one person can review a package, in fact that would be great.

The reviewing procedure in short:

  1. Pick a package at
  2. Copy the check-list below and fill it out, marking each box:
    • [x] for passed
    • [n/a] for non-applicable
    • [ ] for skipped (because you cannot do it, missing software, etc)
    • [F] for fails.
  3. Paste your filled in check-list as a comment on the issue above
  4. An Octave Forge Admin will try to look over your review and hopefully release the package.


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

== Compile and Install ==
[ ] 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

== Interaction with pkg ==
[ ] <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:
     *  ________
     *  ________

== Package files in release candidate tarball ==
[ ] 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/ (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).

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