Or how about this... since we have a lack of manpower, create an untested folder, let people run it... assuming no complaints, move it to stable after X number of days or a week or something. Wouldn't that work, considering manpower shortage? ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Stockall" <wstockal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Discussion of the Fedora Legacy Project" <fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, 28 August, 2005 10:47 AM Subject: Re: Fedora Legacy Test Update Notification: rp-pppoe > So what about creating an "Untested" repository or something? Make the > packages available to those willing to use untested packages (don't > waste the effort already put into it) without putting untested packages > with potential problems in with the tested and supposedly trustworthy > packages. > > > Will. > > Pekka Savola wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, William Stockall wrote: > > > >> If no one is interested in testing the patch, doesn't that sort of > >> imply no one really needs it? Why release untested software? If > >> someone actually IS using the package, maybe they can QA it. > >> Otherwise it shouldn't be released. It might be possible to add some > >> code word to the bug and close it due to disinterest or something. > > > > > > The problem with this approach is that it wastes resources: a > > significant amount of time and energy is spent on the following steps: > > > > a) identifying the issues and putting them in bugzilla, > > b) creating packages for all the distros with patches, > > c) getting enough PUBLISH QA votes for the packages, > > d) rebuilding the packages in mach (often there are build issues) > > and releasing in updates-testing, > > > > e) getting the sufficient VERIFY votes > > f) releasing the packages in updates testing [trivial] > > > > At the moment, if we find a package like squid or rp-pppoe which don't > > get verifies, we'll notice it at step e). The energy/time has already > > been spent in steps a) - d). At step a), it is difficult if not > > impossible to figure out if e) would actually happen. > > > > We don't want to waste time and resources, particularly because the > > folks doing Fedora Legacy stuff CAN and DO get frustrated when nothing > > happens and the work already done is flushed down the toilet. > > > > Thus, "just abandon the work at e)" is NOT an option (as we are de-facto > > doing now). Something needs to change. For example, > > > > 1) identifying folks earlier who'd commit to providing at least one > > VERIFY, so the effort is not wasted, or > > 2) the policy which allows releasing non-VERIFYed packages > > after a (longish) timeout. > > > > Because 1) is more work to the process as it is, as I've said earlier, I > > find 2) better.. but I'm open to hearing concrete suggestions. > > > > -- > > 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
