Fwd: Re: releasing updates-testing packages without VERIFY votes

[Mike McCarty]

Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Arg, sent with wrong From: address, so here it is again, since the moderator
> probably won't get to it for a while...
> 
> ----- Forwarded message -----
>  Subject: Re: releasing updates-testing packages without VERIFY votes
>       To: fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com
> 
> Quoting Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi>:
> 
> 
>>I suggest changing the policy so that packages in updates-testing
>>which haven't got any VERIFY votes could:
> 
> 
> First, let me say that it would take less time for the people invloved in these
> "lets publish without QA" discussions to just QA the packages than they are
> spending arguing if we should publish them without any QA.  But, back to
> the current point of discussion...
> 
> 
>>  - after 2 weeks, marked with a timeout
>>  - after the timeout of 4 weeks [i.e., 6 weeks total] be
>>    officially published
> 
> 
> This goes against everything this group was founded on, and all Best
> Practices.  However, it does seem to be popular with the few folks
> involved in these conversations.  So, I'll approve of this, but only
> if ammended to include the following:

Well I don't. I object to it, period. It's not only not best practice,
it's bad practice.

If no one picks it up, and tests it, then how do we know it doesn't
create a worse problem than it reputedly solves?

[snip]

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!