On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 23:13 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 06/28/2012 09:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > That's not really true. We don't maintain the updates policy, FESCo > > does. > > Yes that's what I'm saying as in why is Fesco maintaining the update > policy instead of us + releng? > > > We don't maintain Bodhi, infrastructure does. We don't maintain > > Bugzilla, RH engineering ops does. > Yeah with regards to Bugzilla, our infrastructure team really ought to > be maintaining our own private instance of it. If it continues to be run > by RH engineering ops limiting us by some RHEL Customer rules and > policies and what not that we have no clues who are then I guess I will > have to start going against what I have advocated all these years and > recommend that reporters stop using it and report bugs directly upstream > as several maintainers within the project has wanted us to do for some time. > > We already have had one project leaving Bugzilla perhaps it's time for > us to do it as well. > > > There isn't really much at all in the > > updates process that is owned/maintained by QA; we just have an obvious > > responsibility to contribute our testing. > > Arguably that should be changed... Oh, I see. Well there's obviously a case for that, if we wanted to argue it, but it's not totally clear cut, as there's obviously a big 'packaging/engineering' component to updates as well as a 'testing' component, which is why it's currently under FESCo. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
