I wrote:
> In terms of those metrics, I'm still in favor of a mostly anarchical
> approach:
[snip]
Oh, and I forgot:
* *No* QA of the type the original Fedora Legacy had, where all updates had to
reviewed before even pushing them to testing and tested before pushing them to
stable. I believe it was this excessive QA which killed Fedora Legacy. Instead,
it should be up to whoever submits the updates to decide whether to go through
testing and when to push to stable, and no QA whatsoever should be required to
push an update to testing, just as things work in all of Fedora. If the
security team insists on it, the security team approval system for security
updates could be applied (though I consider that completely unnecessary
bureaucracy, but that's a separate rant), if they don't want to be approving
security updates for EOL releases, then they should just go straight to stable.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
