[arch-dev-public] Signoffs on simple version bumps (was: [signoff] man-pages 3.08-1)
aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Wed Aug 27 14:22:29 EDT 2008
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke at arcor.de> wrote:
>>> too slow. now please signoff 3.08-1
>> New proposal here. For packages that meet the following criteria (this
>> was on-the-fly, I really don't think it needs to be set in stone):
>> 1. Frequent releases (anything 2 weeks or quicker)
>> 2. Little to no system impact if broken (initscripts would not fit the
>> bill, for instance, but man-pages are not critical)
>> 3. Can be easily verified by the maintainer to be working
>> Can we skip the signoff procedure? The maintainer is of course free to
>> still ask for it, but it would keep our pipeline from getting
>> logjammed by stuff that really isn't in need of serious testing.
>> Maybe just have list of packages in core we agree can be moved without
>> signoffs, such as man-pages, tzdata, etc.
> Yeah, I thought about this in the beginning, but it's easier to make a
> blanket rule than to start adding exceptions.
> I'm interested in hearing opinions on this.
Dusty: Do you think it would be possible to add a DB table for
packages excluded from signoffs? If we can do this, and integrate it
with the web interface for signoffs, I can manage the actual contents
of the table myself (or, well, anyone with django admin access can).
More information about the arch-dev-public