Benjamin Smith wrote:
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.
Then why are we having this discussion? I thought that the issue
was that "testing" wasn't being actually tested.
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
