On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:09 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > >> So for most users, when updating to updates-testing (or something >> straight from bodhi/koji that has not been put in updates-testing) a 0 >> is the most likely response that should be given. A +1 should only be >> given in cases where a specific test has been done (and should be >> commented on. Ones without comments should be disregarded before pushing >> to stable.) > > It's a nice effort, thanks. This doesn't reflect how we've been using it > in practice, though, certainly for F13. We're basically using it as a > quick 'sanity check'; Bill and I have been happily +1ing any critpath > package in F13 updates-testing which didn't actually eat our babies, > even if it has problems. No problem. I figured it would be a good way to at least give people who are using Till's scripts to know what to say when. If we get a lot of 0's it still means its being looked at which fits into the criteria people were talking about elsewhere. > I think before we can get down to the nitty-gritty of fleshing out > specific voting criteria, we should probably agree on exactly what > extent we want testing to be done. And possibly whether we can really > represent it with a simple numeric system... I agree. Its more complicated and trinary logic. > 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 > -- Stephen J Smoogen. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
