Re: no mandatory QA testing at all [Re: crazy thought about how to ease QA testing]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Legacy Announce]     [Fedora Config]     [PAM]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite Questions]

  Powered by Linux