On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 19:28 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "HdG" == Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx> writes: > > HdG> I fully agree this new process is a PITA. The old process worked > HdG> very well, what problems where there with the old process that > HdG> this new process is trying to fix? > > The fact that bugzilla creaks, groans and ultimately dies when faced > with a blocker bug having 1500 dependencies. The previous system just > doesn't scale to all of the core review stuff. > > Now, we could just treat the core review as an anomaly and go back to > the old system for old reviews. Or we could move forward with a > refinement of the new process that works better. Either way is fine > with me as long as it works. > > What's annoying is that people whining because something has changed. > We've tried something new because we needed to. The whole thing is a > work in progress. Deal. If we never try anything new, we'll never do > worse but we also won't ever do any better. +1 /B -- Brian Pepple <bpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
