On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 07:32 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > > I agree that this would complicate the process further. > > I have proposed something simpler, and still do: > > 1) every package, even without any VERIFY QA votes at all, will be > released automatically in X weeks (suggest: X=2). > > exception: at package PUBLISH time, the packager and/or publisher, > if they think the changes are major enough (e.g., non-QAed patches > etc.), they can specify that the package should not be > automatically released. > > 2) negative reports block automatic publishing. > > 3) positive reports can speed up automatic publishing (for example: 2 > VERIFY votes --> released within 1 week, all verify votes: > released immediately after the last verify) > > There is no need (IMHO) to grade packages to more or less critical > ones. Every QA tester and eventual package user uses his or her own > value judgment. If (s)he fears that the (potentially untested) > automatic update would break the system, (s)he would test it before > two weeks are over. > > Publishing positive reports can be made simpler but that probably > isn't on the critical path here. Reluctantly I can agree to this. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
