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

[Jesse Keating]

On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 07:32 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> 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. 

Reluctantly I can agree to this.

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20060210/4af0ead5/attachment.sig>