On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 11:06 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Same applies to positive karma. Is the +1 the result of substantial > testing or just a +1 to get the new "adventurous" stuff, which makes > Fedora less boring? Yes, a standard for +1 karma would be helpful. But even before that, we need a standard (or at least an understanding shared by maintainers) for how much total testing an update needs before being pushed to stable. I have been using fedora-easy-karma for a few weeks now, and I typically give a +1 after successfully performing my most common workflow(s) using the package. The fact that the package works at all in my environment is valuable information, but it's still important to ensure that the package gets the desired total amount of testing. On a tangent, one thing that should probably be tested is that each bug claimed to be fixed is in fact fixed. That test should be done by someone who was able to reproduce the bug in the first place, otherwise it is meaningless. For an example where an update was pushed without any attempt at such testing and turned out not to fix the bug, see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rsync-3.0.7-2.fc12 -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
