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

[Mike McCarty]

David Eisenstein wrote:

[snip]

> Doing things this way may have the unfortunate effect of pretty much doing
> away with QA Testing, though.  If a package is going to be released two
> weeks from when it is pushed to updates-testing, regardless of whether or
> not it has been tested, people may end up saying, "Why bother?"

I'l make that stronger...

I'd rather run with a known security vulnerability than an untested
package. With a known security hole, I know some steps I can take
externally to my box, and know what my vulnerability is. With an
untested package, I know neither.

> We can always revisit this decision if users start having problems with 
> the packages that Fedora Legacy releases.

If "two weeks, and it gets released whether it's tested or not"
is implemented, then Fedora Legacy gets removed from my yum
configuration file, and I start considering installing Debian or
CentOS or Scientific Linux.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!