On 03/01/2010 11:27 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 08:07 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >>> So yeah, I agree it's not a perfect system - detailed suggestions for >>> improving it would be welcome, I'm sure. >> >> Alternatives: >> >> * Abandon it (I don't think this would change anything wrt. to QA in Fedora) > > Um. Hard to put this tactfully. You're completely wrong. Feel free to disagree. As I wrote before, "voting on quality" is the wrong approach and a flaw of the system. > Being actually > *in* QA I have quite a lot of experience with this, and the Bodhi system > has already stopped lots of broken updates being shipped. Then your experiences with karma is different than mine. May-be you experienced a negative comment to let the maintainer revisit a package? This has nothing to do with the karma votes. It's a side-effect of the testers utilizing bodhi as communication medium. > Throwing it > out would be insane. Well, I disagree again. I consider the current karma stuff to be flawed and keeping it to be silly - The majority of packages don't receive any votes and if they are being ignored. To me the karma voting systems is a means rel-eng utilizes to *cheat themself*. >> * In cases an update is trying to address a particular bug in BZ, >> replace let people comment in bugzilla. > > You mean, let people check a box to have their comment from Bugzilla put > into Bodhi? Yes, I had something along these lines in mind. The idea behind it: * individual reporters have been facing a bug and BZ'ed it. * maintainer releases a new package release which is supposed to address reporter's bug. Now let all feedback go into reporter's BZ. Nowadays, in such kind of situations, a maintainer often adds a "Should be fix in release x.y.rpm, please try" comment and a adds a "BUGFIX, BZ#NR" to bodhi. >> All the voting/karma stuff does is to let rel-eng believe to be dealing >> with bad updates, while it actually doesn't cope with the problems it is >> trying to address, it's the wrong tool. > > As I said, I just disagree. I have seen many cases where updates that > otherwise would have gone out and caused real pain to real people have > been caught by Bodhi. The fact that some weren't caught by Bodhi doesn't > mean it's useless. Again, I feel what you might have seen are a very small subset of isolated cases ... in the overwhelming majority of cases, this karma stuff is not being utilized at all ... and even if, it is being ignored. >>> 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. > >> Well, the only positive impact bodhi had on me was bodhi implementing a >> more or less usable web-frontend, where Fedora had nothing in place >> before. This doesn't mean it is a good system and even less does this >> mean this system is perfect or bug-free. > > Didn't I just get done saying it's not perfect or bug-free, but that > doesn't mean the sensible answer is to burn it down? I didn't say "burn it down"!! Bluntly put, I am saying "karma is dysfunctional/conceptionally inapplicable", the "web GUI leaves much to be desired", "there is no usable CLI" and "koji/bodji" integration sucks" ... but this is off-topic, here. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
