QA process was Re: RPM submission procedure

[Jef Spaleta]

Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Just an off-the-cuff idea: if one trusted, or two untrusted
> developers vote a package ready to move to "upwards" it should be moved ?  
> (assuming that one PUBLISH vote from untrusted developer is enough to get
> a package into testing/unstable)

So what yer saying is... if my friend and I, see something we want
sitting in QA, I can tell him, and we can make half-hearted attempts
as untrusted people to do QA and both setting the +1 publish note
without actually doing the QA checklist at all....and get it out and
built? Seems there has to be an emergency stop button somewhere to
prevent me from not making an effort to do the QA work. Seems in the
untrusted space -1 publish comments need to matter too. Because i can
certainly see user interest in short-cutting the process to get packages
out of QA faster, tempting the use of +1 publish inappropriately by
untrusted people. But I can't really see a compelling misuse of the -1
publish comment by untrusted people, holding up packages just to be an
ass, isn't really a compelling interest in more than 1 or 2 people in
the userbase( well 3 counting me).

-jef