changes are needed, we need keep moving

[Mark Scott]

Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>
>> If you mean that it only takes 1 verify vote for any version of an update
>> to publish an update (across all versions) than I stand by what I said.
>> Otherwise, I'd have to ask that you clarify what you mean.
>
>
> Yes, this is what I said.  It currently requires 1 verify vote to VERIFY
> one version (in the past, the rules said two for each, but packages
> never got out that way so it has been taken down to 1).
>
> What I say is that if folks don't care enough to report their successes
> or problems within two weeks of someone formally first test of the
> package, they deserve what they get.
>
> That said, I could also live with two verify votes (for any version)
> plus the similar timeout, but I think timeliness is more important.
>

So... if I verify a package for FC1 or FC2 (the distros I have access
to) then I can personally remove the 'verify-core1' or 'verify-fc2' from
the whiteboard? I never wanted to do this in the past when it was 2
verifies as I assumed the Reporter / Assignee was responsible for this.

With regards to verifying packages, there are several waiting for a
verify on FC1 or FC2 that I would not feel comfortable verifying because
I do not (or never have) used them, e.g. PostgreSQL, rp-pppoe,
squirrelmail, gftp, ethereal. Obviously if this is true of all verifiers
then this is a problem that will block their release.

--
Mark Scott
CSUK Solutions Technical Team
Tel: +44 (0)845 6444 185
Email: mark.scott at csuk-solutions.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20050603/4c59926f/attachment.sig>