On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of > >> proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that. > > > See above, you cannot judge this on current experience. > > Yes I can. I have two critpath packages that are in testing with > security bugs, both pretty small and easy to test, and both still have > karma zero. That seems to me to be adequate proof that there's not the > manpower out there to do this. Have you actually asked anyone to test it? Or even considered *mentioning the names of the packages* so maybe someone here could help? You're putting way more effort into complaining about testing being required than it would actually take to get someone to perform the required testing. I find this to be a poor use of your time and mine. > The right way to go about this is to ramp up proventester manpower > *first* before making it a required gating factor. Chicken-and-egg problem. It turns out nobody does testing when it's optional. So now it's not optional. But take heart - if both packages are small and easy to test, surely it'll be really easy to find someone to test them both. -w -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
