On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Eric Rostetter wrote:
If people want it released, we can just test the installation/updating of
it, not the functionality of it or the exploits, and let it go at that.
I'd prefer it was tested for functionality, but sometimes that just isn't
going to happen, and this may be one of those times. But anyone can test
that it installs without problems, so we should at least do that much.
Either way, I think the packages which aren't tested in months (xchat
and squid also belong in the same category) call for one of the
following:
1) officially forgetting the update, removing it from
updates-testing, and from the issue lists
2) specially marking "QA still needed but these are very low
priority" updates, or
3) just releasing them with lower amount of QA or no QA at all after
some timeout (e.g., 6 weeks) and revising if someone complains it
doesn't work right.
As it is, the problem is that the bug issue lists keep getting longer,
not shorter. We should be able to get "rid of" historic and minor
updates using some means.
I don't have strong preference here, but I think 3) would probably be
best. If no-one wants to do (official) QA, we could just release the
update if it looks trivial, and fix it later if something is reported
to break.
--
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
