Quoting Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>: > 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). That is very bad. We really need to restore it to 2 votes. One vote isn't enough. Seriously. If we're not able to get 2 votes, then plea to the list for the second. If we still don't get 2 votes then we need to disband this project, or change it into a different project. Seriously, if we can't get 2 votes for a package, then there is a real problem going on. > 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 isn't the point of the project though. It would be much better to get two votes. Heck, if you do one, and I do one, we're done. The only time that would be a problem is the once or twice a year we go on vacation. > That said, I could also live with two verify votes (for any version) > plus the similar timeout, but I think timeliness is more important. I can agree to 2 votes plus timeout. If we give 2 weeks for the votes, and 2 additional weeks for the timeout, then everything is done in one month. Sounds reasonable to me. > FYI, one verify vote is sufficient to VERIFY a distro version right > now, so this is why I said one measly verify vote. I wasn't aware of this; last I knew we still needed two votes. How/when did this change? > We can't avoid these errors completely by testing, because there just > aren't enough people willing to do the testing and report the errors. > We'll just have to publish and revise if something breaks. But we can try better/harder to get more votes (including say, getting me to test/vote more, and getting those who run updates-testing but don't vote to vote). Worst of all is things like the recent post of "I reported a problem with package X to person Y but never heard back about it." > > If you want commercial support, buy it from Red Hat or Progeny or someone. > > Otherwise, if you want "free" support you have to "work" for it. > > Personally, I think this is a good principle. You may also get free > support without any work, but you surely don't get the right to > complain about it unless you contribute. But this list is a complaint heaven right now. We need to address this as a real problem, and try to get a real solution. Stopping the testing isn't a real solution. > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > -- > > fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > -- Eric Rostetter -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
