Eric Rostetter wrote:
Arg, sent with wrong From: address, so here it is again, since the moderator
probably won't get to it for a while...
----- Forwarded message -----
Subject: Re: releasing updates-testing packages without VERIFY votes
To: fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Quoting Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>:
I suggest changing the policy so that packages in updates-testing
which haven't got any VERIFY votes could:
First, let me say that it would take less time for the people invloved in these
"lets publish without QA" discussions to just QA the packages than they are
spending arguing if we should publish them without any QA. But, back to
the current point of discussion...
- after 2 weeks, marked with a timeout
- after the timeout of 4 weeks [i.e., 6 weeks total] be
officially published
This goes against everything this group was founded on, and all Best
Practices. However, it does seem to be popular with the few folks
involved in these conversations. So, I'll approve of this, but only
if ammended to include the following:
Well I don't. I object to it, period. It's not only not best practice,
it's bad practice.
If no one picks it up, and tests it, then how do we know it doesn't
create a worse problem than it reputedly solves?
[snip]
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
