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

Eric Belanger belanger at ASTRO.UMontreal.CA
Sun Dec 2 16:53:01 EST 2007

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 

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

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list