Luke's dictionary is more correct than yours.
.... anyone else see how horrid the line I just wrote sounded in your head when you read it? That's what this thread sounds like. Did we really need to take some raw numbers that Luke was kind enough to put together and make it into some sort of QA methods holy war?
-AdamM (From Android)
On Jun 9, 2010 2:11 AM, "Ralf Corsepius" <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 06/09/2010 08:54 AM, Luke Macken wrote:
Exactly. Your definition differs from Kevin's (and mine).
> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 08:38 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
...
To me, your definition of success is "compliance with *your* process".
> ...which is exactly what I meant to being with.
Whether this process is suitable to improve package quality, whether the
technical system behind it is a good approach and whether your approach
actually improves package quality or is mere bureaucray is highly
questionable.
That said, all you demonstrated is your system not being entirely
broken, but I don't see any "success" related to QA in your statistic.
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listin...
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
