no mandatory QA testing at all [Re: crazy thought about how to ease QA testing]

[Pekka Savola]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Jesse Keating wrote:
> This makes it even more complicated.  points?  how many are enough?
> What makes one package more critical than another?  How ambiguous could
> this be?

I agree that this would complicate the process further.

I have proposed something simpler, and still do:

1) every package, even without any VERIFY QA votes at all, will be
    released automatically in X weeks (suggest: X=2).

    exception: at package PUBLISH time, the packager and/or publisher,
    if they think the changes are major enough (e.g., non-QAed patches
    etc.), they can specify that the package should not be
    automatically released.

2) negative reports block automatic publishing.

3) positive reports can speed up automatic publishing (for example: 2
    VERIFY votes --> released within 1 week, all verify votes:
    released immediately after the last verify)

There is no need (IMHO) to grade packages to more or less critical 
ones.  Every QA tester and eventual package user uses his or her own 
value judgment.  If (s)he fears that the (potentially untested) 
automatic update would break the system, (s)he would test it before 
two weeks are over.

Publishing positive reports can be made simpler but that probably 
isn't on the critical path here.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings