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

[Marc Deslauriers]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 22:00 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> 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. 

I agree to this. 

Marc
-------------- 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/20060211/9e999973/attachment.sig>