Round-up, 2004-09-09

[David Botsch]

I do tend to think we should try and not release broken packages. That is
something that annoys lots (myself included) when RedHat releases a package
that breaks something critical (such as process accounting).

I would propose the following:

after two PUBLISHes, the package goes to updates-testing as current

If this is a critical hole (say, a remote exploit), we immediately release the
package to updates

If the hole is not as critical, then we go through the normal QA process. Two
VERIFYs are after some period of time (say one week) with no objections, the
package goes to updates

On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 06:18:31PM +0200, Andres Adrover Kvamsdal wrote:
> >>squirrelmail - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1733
> >>Needs 2 VERIFY before release (also double check no new issues have
> >>cropped up)
> 
> This is the main problem I see with Fedora Legacy.  "double check no new 
> issues have cropped up"  As I see it Fedora Legacy should release ASAP. 
>  Remember that redhat has released several broken packages.  They fixed 
> that releasing improved packages some few days later.
> 
> I do not understand why Fedora Legacy has to be better than RedHat.
> 
> Andres
> 
> 
> --
> fedora-legacy-list mailing list
> fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list

-- 
********************************
David William Botsch
Consultant/Advisor II
CCMR Computing Facility
dwb7 at ccmr.cornell.edu
********************************