oops, not sure how I sent that to the list ;-) Must be one of those days. - Si On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 11:31 -0600, Simon Weller wrote: > Access was being rotated correctly, but it didn't appear that the error > log was. > > Give it another go now. > > - Si > > On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 12:24 -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote: > > 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 -- -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
