Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:25:04 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
The base functionality must still be tested.
That is much too vague.
We need to sit down and define the details more precisely if we agree
with the fundamental idea.
Don't you fear that it would drive away reviewers?
I does raise the bar a bit on the reviewers. I fear more that we are
driving away users by the mentality around pushing packaging and waiting
for bug reports to arrive that the package is basically broken. If we
continue along that path more we won't be left with much users.
You're pushing at the wrong side.
That FESCO has neglected to pursue some important goals [of the past] is
no secret.
I am not sure assigning blame is going to be useful in changing
anything. It is a fact that we could do better in our QA processes
without directly involving FESCo.
The community has lost control over what used to be a
community-driven Fedora Extras. The new updates system has been advertised
for many months as offering QA features, such as a repoclosure that would
prevent broken dependencies from entering the repo
Fedora Extras had a rolling updates model which allows more freedom for
package maintainers but it is inconsistent with what was Fedora Core and
due to the differences in infrastructure and policies there wasn't a
good model on the whole. There has been a lot of work merging the repos
and the setting up the new update system and very few people are
contributing but I do see improvements being made.
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
