On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 16:35 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > This case is a nice example demonstrating several defects in "applying > karma votes for QA": > > > 1. The update package was sitting in "updates-testing" since 2010-02-22. > > > 2. It did receive +3 karma points before being pushed to "updates" > c.f. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cyrus-sasl-2.1.23-6.fc12 > => There are people who claim to have tested it and not having noticed > anything unusual. They didn't claim that. They claimed that it 'works fine here' and 'works fo[r] me' (the other message just says 'thanks', but we can count it as 'works for me' as that's what the radio button says). The point is: this update *does* work. The error message is non-fatal. The software works. So what they claim is correct. What you claim is also correct. What this highlights is, indeed, a defect, though - the same one I raised at the FESco meeting: we don't have a definition of what exact criteria a package should meet to get a +1. Should we vote down updates which have non-fatal scriptlet errors? That question doesn't yet have a clear answer. It doesn't, however, mean the initial testers were 'not carefully enough', as you claim on the ticket. It just means you were working to different criteria. -- 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
