On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 08:04 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Shrug, karma is optional. Many maintainers appreciate it (I do), if you > > don't, then don't use it. > > Technically.... bugzilla is optional too. I'm doing a good job of ignoring it. > > And I think this line of argumentation is sort of moot. I think the > problem is we aren't getting enough feedback into bodhi to know > whether or not bodhi is competing with bugzilla. > > I don't think the problem is the design of bodhi "the webservice", I > think the problem is we don't have a streamlined way to pull feedback > from users in a timely manner to impact updates-testing. > > In aggregate how many karma votes do we get averaged for all current > updates-testing packages in a given week? > > 1) We need bodhi integration into PK, so people who choose to use > updates-testing get timely reminders and client side help in send in > feedback for each and every update in testing they consume. Yes! ... but good luck. > 2) We need updates-testing enablement to be an in your face install > time option, where we make the case to users to use updates-testing to > help other users avoid problems No, what you really want is your package manager integration so you can say: 1. "You searched for FOO", there is version 1-1 in your Fedora release version 1-2 has been in testing for X days and has Y karma, and version 2-1 is in "rawhide" but is installable with no / Z number of required packages. 2. I noticed that FOO package just crashed, there is an update available in testing which fixes these BugZillas: 12234666 - Random crashes when doing XYZ etc. ...but, again, it doesn't fit into the design/philosophy of PK so it'll be a huge amount of work. -- James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
