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

[Mike McCarty]

David Rees wrote:
> 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

[snip]

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

Then the Legacy Project has removed my ability not to subscribe
to "testing".

>>>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.

Since Legacy is no longer in my yum configuration, it's no longer
an issue for me, good or bad. I don't wish to subscribe to "testing".
Since "testing" and "release" have been merged, I have unsubscribed
from "release". If the security notices on FC2 get severe enough,
I'll just move on to CentOs, Scientific Linux, or Debian. Since
I'm already helping administer a Debian box, it might make sense
to move to that.

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!