Benjamin Smith wrote:
On Friday 10 February 2006 21:32, Pekka Savola wrote:On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Jesse Keating wrote:This makes it even more complicated. points? how many are enough? What makes one package more critical than another? How ambiguous could this be?I agree that this would complicate the process further. I have proposed something simpler, and still do: 1) every package, even without any VERIFY QA votes at all, will be released automatically in X weeks (suggest: X=2). exception: at package PUBLISH time, the packager and/or publisher, if they think the changes are major enough (e.g., non-QAed patches etc.), they can specify that the package should not be automatically released. 2) negative reports block automatic publishing. 3) positive reports can speed up automatic publishing (for example: 2 VERIFY votes --> released within 1 week, all verify votes: released immediately after the last verify)Pekka, I've proposed (1, 2) before... That's why I've moved my last remaining FC1 systems to testing - I've just not had problems with the updates, and I'd rather run a secure but occasionally unstable system than an insecure but "stable" one.
Then why are we having this discussion? I thought that the issue
was that "testing" wasn't being actually tested.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
