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

[Eric Belanger]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Travis Willard 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.
>


I agree that the packager shouldn't count as a signoff. That how I 
undertood it before the little discussion in IRC.

IMO, the way signoff should be done to prevent any potential screw up is 
that 2 devs other than the packagers should signoff and that each 
architecture should at least be signed off 
once.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.