On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 22:00 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > 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. I agree to this. Marc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
