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

[Eric Rostetter]

Quoting Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty at sbcglobal.net>:

> Eric Rostetter wrote:

> > 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.

I agree.
 
> 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?

I agree.  But I'm tired of being on the losing side of the same battle
every 3-6 months...

> Mike

I'm hoping that if we send the message to the mailing list, it will prompt
people like me to at least *try* to do some limited QA testing...

And I insist we note it in the bugzilla, and now that I think about it in
the advisory notice also, so people doing due diligence (reading the advisory
before installing) will know that it hasn't been QA'd and they need to
do their own QA if they want to use it.

-- 
Eric Rostetter