On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 03:06:37PM -0400, Will Woods wrote: > 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. Using karma 0 the patch could be this one: http://till.fedorapeople.org/tmp/0001-support-passed_autoqa.patch Tested with: http://0.0.0.0:8084/updates/sos-2.2-0.fc13 To make it pass autoqa run in sqlite3 /var/tmp/bodhi.sqlite update comment set author = "autoqa" where update_id = 1435; Instead of making it a bool, it might be also a good idea to use three values: untested, passed, failed and in case if failed a pointer to the test results. Regards Till
Attachment:
pgpULOdE2yF2B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
