Fedora Legacy Test Update Notification: rp-pppoe

[Jason Lim]

Or how about this... since we have a lack of manpower, create an untested
folder, let people run it... assuming no complaints, move it to stable
after X number of days or a week or something.

Wouldn't that work, considering manpower shortage?



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Stockall" <wstockal at compusmart.ab.ca>
To: "Discussion of the Fedora Legacy Project"
<fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com>
Sent: Sunday, 28 August, 2005 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Fedora Legacy Test Update Notification: rp-pppoe


> So what about creating an "Untested" repository or something?  Make the
> packages available to those willing to use untested packages (don't
> waste the effort already put into it) without putting untested packages
> with potential problems in with the tested and supposedly trustworthy
> packages.
>
>
> Will.
>
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, William Stockall wrote:
> >
> >> If no one is interested in testing the patch, doesn't that sort of
> >> imply no one really needs it?  Why release untested software?  If
> >> someone actually IS using the package, maybe they can QA it.
> >> Otherwise it shouldn't be released. It might be possible to add some
> >> code word to the bug and close it due to disinterest or something.
> >
> >
> > The problem with this approach is that it wastes resources: a
> > significant amount of time and energy is spent on the following steps:
> >
> >  a) identifying the issues and putting them in bugzilla,
> >  b) creating packages for all the distros with patches,
> >  c) getting enough PUBLISH QA votes for the packages,
> >  d) rebuilding the packages in mach (often there are build issues)
> >     and releasing in updates-testing,
> >
> >  e) getting the sufficient VERIFY votes
> >  f) releasing the packages in updates testing [trivial]
> >
> > At the moment, if we find a package like squid or rp-pppoe which don't
> > get verifies, we'll notice it at step e).  The energy/time has already
> > been spent in steps a) - d).  At step a), it is difficult if not
> > impossible to figure out if e) would actually happen.
> >
> > We don't want to waste time and resources, particularly because the
> > folks doing Fedora Legacy stuff CAN and DO get frustrated when nothing
> > happens and the work already done is flushed down the toilet.
> >
> > Thus, "just abandon the work at e)" is NOT an option (as we are
de-facto
> > doing now).  Something needs to change.  For example,
> >
> >  1) identifying folks earlier who'd commit to providing at least one
> >     VERIFY, so the effort is not wasted, or
> >  2) the policy which allows releasing non-VERIFYed packages
> >     after a (longish) timeout.
> >
> > Because 1) is more work to the process as it is, as I've said earlier,
I
> > find 2) better.. but I'm open to hearing concrete suggestions.
> >
>
> --
> fedora-legacy-list mailing list
> fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
>