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" -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
