On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 19:21 +0200, Till Maas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:40:01AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On 7/6/10 8:52 AM, Till Maas wrote: > > > IMHO it should not be a +1 karma but some different flag that is set for > > > updates that passed the tests. > > > > Using karma is viewed as the path of least resistance to getting support > > in current bodhi for this. For future bodhi yes, it makes some sense to > > use some different flagging mechanism. > > Essentially using a different flag is just re-using the code used to > flag a package as critpath-approved only with a different name. > Therefore it should not need that much more effort. Feel free to help write the code to prove this point! > Btw. using the "path of least resistance" to implement policy > changes seems to be what makes the new workflows suck for package > maintainers, e.g. with the change in place using a auto-karma value of 1 > will become 0. Well that's only one *proposed* idea. We could just as easily have autoqa give a comment with neutral (0) karma on updates which pass, and -1 on failed updates, which would serve all the same purposes. That might be a better idea, actually. -w -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
