David Rees wrote:
On 2/14/06, Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Perhaps I misunderstood
what the proposal is. My understanding is that there are new
[snip]
That is correct. However, if the necessary QA votes get published
before the timeout hits, the package will be released sooner.
Then the Legacy Project has removed my ability not to subscribe
to "testing".
very self service project. You get out of it what you put into it.
More accurately, I get out of it what I pull from the repositories.
And by not contributing any QA yourself, you can not expect to get any
QA besides what the original packager put into the release. Which is
good enough if we can't get enough QA votes to release it before the
proposed timeout hits. If it's not good enough for you, I suggest that
you QA these packages yourself.
Since Legacy is no longer in my yum configuration, it's no longer
an issue for me, good or bad. I don't wish to subscribe to "testing".
Since "testing" and "release" have been merged, I have unsubscribed
from "release". If the security notices on FC2 get severe enough,
I'll just move on to CentOs, Scientific Linux, or Debian. Since
I'm already helping administer a Debian box, it might make sense
to move to that.
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
