Re: architecture-specific release criteria - requalification needed
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Ingo Juergensmann]
>> As I tried to say: there need more exact quidelines for
>> this. Currently they are very vague in my eyes.
> You failed to say why the guidelines need to be more exact. In my
> view, the guidelines are good enough. This is probably colored by the
> fact that I trust the good judgement of the release team, and the good
> will of both the release team and the porters to make sure any unclear
> issues are resolved together.
>
> I'm starting to suspect you do not trust the release team nor the
> porters to make good judgement and be able to work together to figure
> this out based on the given guidelines. Is this so?
Nono... of course not!
It's just my personal experience that this sort of guidelines need
either to be precise or need to be judged by a common sense.
The proposal make some very exact guidelines like the 98% rule whereas
it is very unprecise in other regards. I find this quite irrating and
thus asking for clarification.
And I want to prevent misunderstandings. I want to know with what I'll
be faced in the future, especially because I think that the current
ruleset is sufficient and have other opinions in some areas (number of
buildds, eg.).
I would prefer a different approach to the release problem, which I
already have outlined in some older discussions.
Please do not expect bad things when someone asks questions.
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
Reply to: