[csw-maintainers] amendments and issues with recent prop

[Philip Brown]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Mon Jun 27 09:08:39 -0400 2011:
>
>> People keep trying to force this into a "human, OR automated process",
>> and claiming this is what I want.
>> Yet not once have I advocated getting rid of the automated process. My
>> preference is for
>> "human examination, AND automated process".
>
> We currently have a human examination with 'automated' process wrapped
> around it.  Normally we'd refer to this as status quo.


I guess there's a bit of ambiguity there. there is currently
"automated process" in the sense of compiler helpers and checks  in
gar.
But there isnt so much "automated process" with the   (take package,
and help it flow out to "current") part of things.

So in this context, "automated process" is best read as "automated
release & validation process".

I think a lot of the new proposal is very good in that reguard: making
that flow a less manual process gets a thumbs up from me; its way too
manual for my liking also. The amount of by-hand messing around with
files currently required is not a good thing in my opinion.

I also like the fact that the new proposal has *some* measure of
automated quality control, in the sense of the "check for bugs before
migrating from unstable  to current" stuff.

Additionally, there is great positive potential for the tie-in for
reviewers, in the other thread Maciej started.
All of these things are, in my opinion, better than "status quo".

I would not prefer things to remain "status quo" indefinately; I
myself would like to see most of the improvements suggested in the
proposal.  Just not 100% of them.