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

[Pekka Savola]

Hi,

It seems there's rather strong agreement for this.

Unless I hear major objections in two days, I'll start the two-week 
clock (from today) for all the pending packages.

After that I'll also update the Wiki entry for QaVerify unless someone 
else has done it.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
>>> 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
>

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