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

[Eric Rostetter]

Quoting James Kosin <jkosin at beta.intcomgrp.com>:

> Jesse Keating wrote:
>>
>> If I'm not mistaken, the timeout period starts when there is a package
>> for updates testing.

There has been talk the last couple days of doing away with QA to get it
to the updates-testing.  This is what I was referencing, not the current
setup.

>> We can't get to the updates testing package phase
>> w/out somebody doing the first level QA which includes making sure the
>> patch uses is a known good patch from at least some other vendor.  So

I don't think this is true in theory; the patch need not come from some
other vendor, or even upstream, in theory, though it perhaps always has
in practice.  Plus, the upstream patch is often modified, so there is
always the chance for foul-play.

>> the plot to root all Legacy systems is going to have to start further up
>> the food chain.

I don't think so.  And in any case, I was refering to the suggestion on
this list that we don't do QA to move to updates-testing, which would
by-pass this whole issue you try to bring up.

> Maybe, its time I started witting something!  A document on the whole
> process for everyone to review and agree upon... unless something like
> this already exists... which I've never seen.

It's been done and re-done so many times it makes my head spin.

> Thanks,
> James Kosin

-- 
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin

Go Longhorns!