On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 11:56 +0100, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > Jim Perrin 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. 14 days is fine for moving things over I think, assuming no > > negative feedback is given. > > +1 > > 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. I can see that as a problem too ... so there should be some kind of discussion on IRC in #centos-devel. 2 weeks seems OK for me for new programs that we haven't provided in the past. 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. -- Johnny Hughes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20051208/749d699a/attachment-0007.sig>