On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 08:49 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > 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. > I vote to just release them after a long timeout period. If there are any issues, we can quickly fix them afterwards. We most often use patches that came from upstream or from another distro anyway, so most of them have already gone through QA. It just doesn't make sense to have stuff in the updates-testing directory for ever. > 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. > I think that is a good idea. Marc.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
