What do we think of this?

[Will Woods]

On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 10:01 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 10:51 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, seth vidal wrote:
> > 
> > > 2. updates-testing for all repos will help
> > 
> > Meaning 3rd party repos?
> 
> I continue to stand firm that its not updates-testing.repo that is
> needed, but "updates testers". We can barely manage formalized QA for
> Fedora (no disrespect to wwoods), how can we in good conscience impose
> that on other repositories?

You're right - simply imposing that on other repos is not going to solve
anything for them, just like the mere presence of updates-testing does
not magically solve any of our problems.

But: having updates-testing *does* allow us to build a proper testing
workflow for proposed updates. So we're doing that. Hopefully the other
repos can follow suit and benefit from this work.

So yeah, it's not the presence of the -testing repo that helps, it's the
workflow you build around it. I hope that we'll lead by example rather
than demand compliance.

-w
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070327/b6990355/attachment.sig>