2009/2/26 Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com>:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 15:13 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Well I would like to have it that it actually has bodhi votes before
> it can be moved. We can have a process for the number of votes needed,
> but I would rather have something getting a couple of +1's that can be
> tracked than a 1 month timeframe and no one looking at it.
Small note, it was overly protective processes like these that
contributed to the fall of Fedora Legacy. It's a really really hard
balance to strike :/
Well I didn't think of it as overly protective when I wrote it, but
that is normally the case isnt it.
I figured we have a small subset of packages that we maintain... and
we have a process where stuff may sit in testing for a month but we
have no feedback on whats there. Instead I figured we could have a
process where we could see that a package was tested, by whom, and
with what and could be considered 'stable'.
My current I-havent-had-a-good-night-sleep-in-a-week feeling is that
calling our repositories testing and stable is misleading. They are
just snapshots that are more accurately called "this-month" and
"next-month". My guess is that going further than that would require
the resources that people pay Red Hat for :).
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"