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

[Mike McCarty]

Benjamin Smith wrote:
> 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.  

Then why are we having this discussion? I thought that the issue
was that "testing" wasn't being actually tested.

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!