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. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq