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

[Benjamin Smith]

On Sunday 12 February 2006 12:17, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> It seems there's rather strong agreement for this.

Yep. (From me) 

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

Cool! 

> 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
> 
> --
> fedora-legacy-list mailing list
> fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 

-- 
"I kept looking around for somebody to solve the problem. 
Then I realized I am somebody" 
   -Anonymous