On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 10:57 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > Sorry, I was replying in haste. I should've made clear that I was > > talking more in general, and don't have any specific direct knowledge of > > the dnssec case. I know of multiple cases where updates have been pushed > > hastily, but I don't have any direct knowledge of the dnssec case > > specifically and wouldn't want to cast any aspersions in anyone's > > direction there. > > > Well, to voting is an inadequate means for judging a package's quality, > because bugs showing in individual cases are not co-related to "works > for many" - It's a fundamental flaw of the system. Yeah, it's not perfect: there are cases where we have, say, a complex kernel update which works fine for most people but causes a significant regression for some particular bit of hardware. We wouldn't want to put that update out, but it's easy for it to get five +1s before someone with the specific bit of hardware comes by and gives it a -1...and even then, +4 looks good if you're not reading the feedback too carefully. So yeah, I agree it's not a perfect system - detailed suggestions for improving it would be welcome, I'm sure. I don't think 'not perfect' is the same as 'useless', though. I think it's pretty easy to make a case that Bodhi has had a significant positive impact on the overall quality of the updates that have fully utilized it. It rarely makes things *worse* :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
