On Friday 10 February 2006 21:32, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > > This makes it even more complicated. points? how many are enough? > > What makes one package more critical than another? How ambiguous could > > this be? > > 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) Pekka, I've proposed (1, 2) before... That's why I've moved my last remaining FC1 systems to testing - I've just not had problems with the updates, and I'd rather run a secure but occasionally unstable system than an insecure but "stable" one. Oh, and I've had ZERO problems with stability... -Ben -- "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - XEROX PARC slogan, circa 1978 -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
