QA process was Re: RPM submission procedure

[Lamar Owen]

On Friday 09 January 2004 11:25 am, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> So what yer saying is... if my friend and I, see something we want
> sitting in QA, I can tell him, and we can make half-hearted attempts
> as untrusted people to do QA and both setting the +1 publish note
> without actually doing the QA checklist at all....and get it out and
> built? Seems there has to be an emergency stop button somewhere to
> prevent me from not making an effort to do the QA work. Seems in the
> untrusted space -1 publish comments need to matter too. Because i can
> certainly see user interest in short-cutting the process to get packages
> out of QA faster, tempting the use of +1 publish inappropriately by
> untrusted people. But I can't really see a compelling misuse of the -1
> publish comment by untrusted people, holding up packages just to be an
> ass, isn't really a compelling interest in more than 1 or 2 people in
> the userbase( well 3 counting me).

So you're talking about something similar to how Slashdot moderation works 
with points.  Then if someone wants to run untested code, they just drop 
their 'view level' to the appropriate place.  If they want solid code, they 
raise the threshhold and don't see the cruft.  In essence, at least.  I like 
your idea.

I think that trusted people should be able to vote negatively too; a trusted 
person might +1 in error occassionally.  Or maybe the trusted person has an 
interest in seeing a favorite package go through quickly (one would hope not, 
but facts are facts, and people sometime lose sight of the big picture when 
their pet idea or package is under fire).
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu