On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 18:56 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Why not? The end is near, it seems to me. It's like fear of castration. > These mad proposals deserve to be flamed. Thanks to the "Fedora School > Of Developing Bad Attitudes", I see myself gaining experience on how to > become a 2nd level troll. :-( I hate that, but these proposals pop up > like mushrooms and spread like a disease. Please provide details on what's mad about Kamil's proposal. > If you - and the QA team - want to expand your testing activities, focus > on the CRITPATH packages first. Do a good job there. Nobody from QA has > ever given feedback to any of my updates, and it won't happen in the > future either. There won't be real testing of those packages unless you > could dedicate resources like some great users do it. But you can't. The proposal isn't really about expanding testing activities, it's about formally codifying how the updates process is actually supposed to work. Right now, we don't in fact define how the Fedora update process is supposed to work: how updates get submitted, how they get promoted and how they get released, who has what responsibilities at what point, none of these is written down. That's what the proposal submitted by Kamil is about. It's not really about trying to impose additional testing or restrictions on updates. The most important thing is to have a framework explaining who does what at what point in the process; exactly what criteria are used to accept or reject updates is not the main thrust of this proposal. As Kamil wrote, the numbers in there at the moment are essentially placeholders, they could be changed entirely, and that's not the important thing about this proposal. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
