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

[David Rees]

On 2/14/06, Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Perhaps I misunderstood
> what the proposal is. My understanding is that there are new
> versions of software which supposedly repair security defects in
> something called "testing". And that until they are tested by some
> volunteers, they remain there. I understand that the proposal is
> to institute a time limit such that if software resides in "testing"
> without any further testing actually being done, then it automatically
> enters "released" after a set time period.

That is correct. However, if the necessary QA votes get published
before the timeout hits, the package will be released sooner.

> > very self service project.  You get out of it what you put into it.
>
> More accurately, I get out of it what I pull from the repositories.

And by not contributing any QA yourself, you can not expect to get any
QA besides what the original packager put into the release. Which is
good enough if we can't get enough QA votes to release it before the
proposed timeout hits. If it's not good enough for you, I suggest that
you QA these packages yourself.

-Dave