Le Dim 28 février 2010 17:24, Adam Williamson a écrit : > > On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 11:43 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > >> There are things only packagers can fix. Everything else should be >> handled by tools so packagers can focus on the parts where they add real >> value. If a process change puts more burden on all packagers because >> it's easier to ask packagers to do stuff than fix tools, it's a bad >> process change. And yes I accept than in some cases not burdening >> packagers means increasing the chance for some problems. Perfection is >> the ennemy of good. > > This is a wonderful sentiment. How does it apply to the current > situation, exactly? What 'tools' is it you're saying are not fixed? Clearly, bohdi/bugzilla/pk interaction is not good enough to collect the kind of feedback needed for the karma system to work. And bohdi should get smarter about identifying packages that need this feedback. Critical path is a good first approximation but what would really help is some heuristic about how much breakage a bad package can cause : how many other packages depend on it (dependency metrics), how long is has lived (has it been in Fedora for years of imported the week before), was it even in the default install for some people, etc. testing is not really operational right now so the main value of forcing people to use testing is to make the process painful enough they are less update-happy. I don't think we should ever aim to make any part of the process painful. This is an anti-feature. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
