On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Jef Spaleta wrote:
Panu Matilainen wrote:
Just an off-the-cuff idea: if one trusted, or two untrusted developers vote a package ready to move to "upwards" it should be moved ? (assuming that one PUBLISH vote from untrusted developer is enough to get a package into testing/unstable)
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
Sure. Of course two trusted developers "teaming up" can get packages published very quickly as well, with half-hearted QA if they wish (and I sure hope everybody respects their "trusted" status not to do it - not that I'm claiming anybody doing this but the chance is there). There's the pending-state of course where anybody can verify/veto a package.. and then the release managers who can veto it if they suspect foul play. Far from foolproof, I agree - better ideas more than welcome.
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
Well, you're signing "this matches upstream md5sum and seems ok" by your gpg signature, it *ought* to mean something to people. And again, I'm talking about getting the packages to testing/unstable by just one untrusted vote, which anybody can veto from being published.
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).
Holding up packages just to be an ass.. well, that's another story :)
- Panu -