<p>Luke's dictionary is more correct than yours.</p>
<p>.... anyone else see how horrid the line I just wrote sounded in your head when you read it? That's what this thread sounds like. Did we really need to take some raw numbers that Luke was kind enough to put together and make it into some sort of QA methods holy war?</p>
<p>-AdamM (From Android)</p>
<p><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 9, 2010 2:11 AM, "Ralf Corsepius" <<a href="mailto:rc040203@freenet.de">rc040203@freenet.de</a>> wrote:<br><br><p><font color="#500050">On 06/09/2010 08:54 AM, Luke Macken wrote:<br>
> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 08:38 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:<br>...</font></p>Exactly. Your definition differs from Kevin's (and mine).<br>
<p><font color="#500050"><br>> ...which is exactly what I meant to being with.<br></font></p>To me, your definition of success is "compliance with *your* process".<br>
<br>
Whether this process is suitable to improve package quality, whether the<br>
technical system behind it is a good approach and whether your approach<br>
actually improves package quality or is mere bureaucray is highly<br>
questionable.<br>
<br>
That said, all you demonstrated is your system not being entirely<br>
broken, but I don't see any "success" related to QA in your statistic.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Ralf<br>
</font><p><font color="#500050"><br>-- <br>devel mailing list<br><a href="mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org">devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br><a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listin.">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listin.</a>..</font></p>
</blockquote></p>