On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:21, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 16:33 +0100, Till Maas wrote: >> 8. The package updated sucessfully, but was not used intentionally. No >> breakage noticed. >> >> This shows, that at least on the test machine, there are no broken deps, >> conflicts or broken scriptlets. > > In my head I sort of had this wrapped up with 'no regressions', but you > might be right that it's best to split it out as a choice. I'm not convinced by the value of this one. IMHO, testing is supposed to be a conscious action. You don't test "unintentionally", and if you installed an update unintentionally, it means (to me) that you didn't test it. I guess it's related to the issue of "do we want to only provide updates that add value or do we want to push any updates that don't break anything"? In any case, like I said I've started playing with the idea in the Bodhi tg2 branch (no ETA yet, I do that on my spare time and I have very few, and lots of other stuff have to be written in the tg2 branch anyway). The way I did it, several karma types can be defined (and I'm taking suggestions on those types from these emails), the only thing that matters is: are they global to the update or are they tied to a specific bug? That's what will be most important when displaying the comment form. Until now, the only proposed thing that wouldn't really fit is number 7: fixes bug X, but does not claim to fix it. It could probably be a special case of the "karma type tied to a specific bug", except the bug is not known in advance but rather specified by the tester. Gotta think about it. :) ---------- Mathieu Bridon -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
