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

[Benjamin Smith]

On Friday 10 February 2006 21:32, Pekka Savola wrote:
> 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)

Pekka, 

I've proposed (1, 2) before... That's why I've moved my last remaining FC1 
systems to testing - I've just not had problems with the updates, and I'd 
rather run a secure but occasionally unstable system than an insecure but 
"stable" one. 

Oh, and I've had ZERO problems with stability... 

-Ben 

-- 
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
- XEROX PARC slogan, circa 1978