On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Thomas Bächler <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 09.02.2010 13:12, schrieb Paul Mattal: >> I think the signoffs are more useful as a "sanity check" than a test of >> the newly-implemented functionality. I think the primary benefit of >> signoffs is catching obvious regressions, more than making sure we, in >> fact, did close bug #83446 completely and correctly. > > Most importantly, the signoffs are there to verify that neither the > package files nor the contained binaries are corrupted. An i686 signoff > is still necessary to see that the package installs fine and the > binaries actually execute - an x86_64 signoff will tell you that the > commands in the PKGBUILD are sane, but not that nothing got corrupted.
Remember that one of the original reasons we went to a "draconian" signoff policy was due to an unbootable kernel getting into [core]. We haven't had that happen again so something worked here. When you look at it that way, a signoff from another person is essential to prove that it didn't break badly. No noise for a week however does make it pretty likely that nothing broke. -Dan
