Marc Deslauriers wrote:
On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 23:48 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ah, now we get down to the nitty gritty of the desire to hasten
the process of going from a Test state to a Release state. Hopefully,
those who in past have seen no need to maintain a policy of "no package
can move from Test state to Release state unless it has actually gone
through test to prove proper operation" and want to change to one of
"if enough time has lapsed, then even if no verification of proper
operation has taken place, we need to move from Test state to Release
state" can see a little bit of the other side of the fence, now.
Curiously, sendmail actually DID get test votes for all platforms before
it got moved to official updates. No part of the QA process was
hastened.
Yes, I saw that. But I worded my statement very carefully. I carefully
used the wording "test to prove proper operation", not "normal test
procedures". Looking back on it, I should not have used the word
"maintain" in the exact context, since combining it with the word
"change" has caused you to infer that I consider that current test
procedure is one which verifies proper operation. I did not mean
to imply that.
This has happened before. Most packages that got pushed out that had
serious problems had been through QA and had people test them. One of
the php updates is an example I know of.
Marc.
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
