On Dec 2, 2007 3:42 PM, Travis Willard email@example.com wrote:
On Dec 2, 2007 4:30 PM, Eric Belanger firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Travis Willard wrote:
That's not the way signoffs work. You CAN'T just 'assume' they are fine. You have to wait. Sorry, but it breaks the whole system otherwise.
Actually, these packages were already signed off by two devs: Dan for i686 and me for x86_64. From an IRC discussion with Aaron, the devs who put the packages in testing counts as one of the two signoff. That might seem strange but it's the way it works unless the signoffs gets a better definition.
That doesn't seem sound to me. Recall the problem when the kernel package that was uploaded had something screwy in it due to a bad transfer. Under this situation, tpowa would have 'signed off' his own upload, whoever built it for x86_64 would have signed it off for their own upload, and then the buggy package i686 would have been pushed to core.
If that's how we want our signoffs, then that's fine - I'm just pointing out a possible flaw.
Hey, rather than continuing this discussion in a thread/venue it's not meant to be in:
sign off i686