On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:09:34PM +0200, Till Maas wrote: > 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. Also the patch is not quite correct depending on how autoqa is supposed to provide comments. In case it really does provide a -1 comment in case of a broken dep, it also needs to provide a +1 comment afterwards once the dep is fixed. This is currently not implemented. But in case autoqa only ever adds a comment in case the update is ok, which is unlikely, because a later update might break the deps again, then it would work. A better documentation about what autoqa actually does would help to write a proper patch. Regards Till
Attachment:
pgptUEDWgWrpJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
