[arch-dev-public] [signoff] shell rebuilds

[Aaron Griffin]

On Dec 2, 2007 3:42 PM, Travis Willard <travis at archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2007 4:30 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger at astro.umontreal.ca> 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