Johnny Hughes wrote:
Ideally some combination of time/feedback would seem to be the way to go. My fear is that if we require people to give feedback about something that's working, it won't happen and the package will rot in testing.
I dont like the idea of time only moving to stable. if no one is eager enough to test the pkg - maybe we dont need it in the first place :) If we dont get any feedback for the pkg - maybe the developer who built it / pkg'ed it - should request specific feedback ?
Judging by the log's we seem to have picked up more than a few dozen users on the dev.centos.org repository... atleast a few of them should be willing to step forward and say ' it works / it breaks '.
Or make that "+1/2" - no negative feedback doesn't mean, that someone tested it and the package didn't break his system, it could also mean that no one tested it. So there should be at least some form of positive feedback, just to make it clear that someone else than the packager *did* successfully install that package.
install is easy to check for, as a part of the buildsystem here at my end, each rpm - once built is installed and any rpm + yum output is log'ed - if there is something out of the ordinary, the package gets held back and is not released anyway.
2 weeks seems OK for me for new programs that we haven't provided in the past.
I worry about the fact that even 1 loose pkg out there, can break a _lot_ of people's setup, we have a *lot* of people know using CentOSPLus and Extras is enabled by default .... Personally, I would be much happier if atleast a couple of people had the 'it works' feedback to provide before it gets moved over.
For CentOS-4 at least, I think either Karanbir, Pasi, or I will be the one that moves it over to production ... and that one of us has personally tested it. I have zero problem with that for CentOS-4.
Sounds good to me.