On 23/06/09 at 12:04 +0100, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > We need to compromise on the level of quality we expect from our > > prospective DDs and new packages. > > I don't accept this premise. > > > We should seek processes that scale. For example: > > This is true - but does not *at all* imply compromising on quality. Well, OK. We need to accept that some of our processes need to be reconsidered, and that the quality level that is being guaranteed by our current processes might be changed (for better or for worse, or simply with checks done by different people or differently). So far, in all those discussions, I've felt that many assumed that a different, more scalable process implied less quality for the whole distribution. While it could only be that quality checks will be organized differently, spread over more people, and not be bottlenecks anymore. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature