Pekka Savola wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Eric Rostetter wrote: > >> If you mean that it only takes 1 verify vote for any version of an update >> to publish an update (across all versions) than I stand by what I said. >> Otherwise, I'd have to ask that you clarify what you mean. > > > Yes, this is what I said. It currently requires 1 verify vote to VERIFY > one version (in the past, the rules said two for each, but packages > never got out that way so it has been taken down to 1). > > What I say is that if folks don't care enough to report their successes > or problems within two weeks of someone formally first test of the > package, they deserve what they get. > > That said, I could also live with two verify votes (for any version) > plus the similar timeout, but I think timeliness is more important. > So... if I verify a package for FC1 or FC2 (the distros I have access to) then I can personally remove the 'verify-core1' or 'verify-fc2' from the whiteboard? I never wanted to do this in the past when it was 2 verifies as I assumed the Reporter / Assignee was responsible for this. With regards to verifying packages, there are several waiting for a verify on FC1 or FC2 that I would not feel comfortable verifying because I do not (or never have) used them, e.g. PostgreSQL, rp-pppoe, squirrelmail, gftp, ethereal. Obviously if this is true of all verifiers then this is a problem that will block their release. -- Mark Scott CSUK Solutions Technical Team Tel: +44 (0)845 6444 185 Email: mark.scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
