On Monday, 01 March 2010 at 23:34, Doug Ledford wrote:
[...]
One could argue that the current bodhi karma system is simply too
simplistic for real use cases.
There's nothing to argue. It's rather obvious. :)
Maybe instead of just +1 -1, there should be:
Fixes my problem
Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
problem supposedly fixed by this update just noting that their system
still works ok with the update)
Doesn't fix my problem (but doesn't necessarily imply it's any worse
than before)
Causes new problems (which should, IMO, be an automatic veto of any push
to stable, requiring intervention to override)
Great choices. This covers all bases, I think.
I could see situations where you would want to push updates to stable
if
say the update was supposed to solve multiple bugs, but turns out it
only solves a subset of those bugs and doesn't cause new ones, so you
would have some FMP, maybe some WFM, some DFMP, but no CNP. You'd
probably just need to leave it up to the maintainer to decided if the
bugs that are solved are important enough to push to stable before
respinning another attempt at the ones that weren't solved.
This is an excellent idea, and big improvement over current purely numeric
karma system in bodhi. +1 to implementing that.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion
http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer
http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"