On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 08:31 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 08:29 -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote: > > As I said; It is NOT anything close to simple, and even then it is > > open > > to too much discernment. A *kernel* has been released recently..who > > tested it in it's entirety? Where is the list of fixes and the > > checkmarks that indicate "x" was fixed by Bob and "x" was tested by > > Sue? > > > > -Jim P. > > Wouldn't that be nice? And wouldn't it be nice if we got a package out > w/out the current sometimes 4 month waiting period? You do know that > Red Hat doesn't even have that complex of a QA system.... Redhat EL has achieved EAL2 and COE certifications. I seriously doubt they did this using the same Q&A procedures that FL is using. Wrt to COE and EAL, there is no such developer statements like "wouldn't that be nice" or "warm and fuzzy feeling". EAL and COE necessitate exacting procedures and processes, something RH seems to be excelling at. Add ISO 9001 into the discussion and your above description of RH Q&A either reveals fraud within RH (wrt ISO 9001 compliance) or insight into your lack of knowledge of RH operations. -Jim P. -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
