On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Martin Sourada wrote:
> > Seeing your mail, you more or less agree with this. So why exactly are
> > you against the policy explicitly requiring either positive karma or
> > some minimal time in testing (setting aside some current shrotcommings
> > of the implementation like resetting the timer on bug update when you
> > just add/remove fixed bug or edit update comment)?
>
> There are changes needing a lot (2+ weeks) of testing (e.g. upstream minor
> feature releases, such as Qt 4.n+1). There are changes needing some (~1
> week, at most 2, of) testing (e.g. upstream bugfix releases / point
> releases). There are changes needing no testing (e.g. trivial one-line fixes
> for a regression in a previous update which need to go out ASAP to fix the
> regression). The maintainer is best qualified to know which applies. The
> maintainer is also much better at judging the quality of his updates than
> some semi-arbitrary number computed out of tester feedback ("karma"). (He
> knows what he changed, he has access to feedback from other places, e.g.
> Bugzilla, IRC, mailing lists, upstream's bug tracker, other distros' bug
> trackers, anonymous Bodhi feedback not counted towards karma etc. – all
> places which can confirm a single patch to fix a reported issue –, he has
> experience from previous updates, and he is able to make an educated
> judgement call based on all that information.) We are very far from software
> being more intelligent than people, so we should let people decide, not
> software. And the people should be able to decide on a case by case basis,
> not some inflexible bureaucratic policy (which is so dumb that it can even
> be enforced by software).
>
Hrm, I see that software as means to gain feedback for my updates --
noone can be 100% sure his changes are bugfree, otherwise we would have
bugfree software. In the ideal case scenario (which we are far from)
this would be used to catch the regression *before* making that update
stable in the first place. Testers are also giving reasons why they put
-1 karma if they did so. IMHO each change requires at least minimal
testing (and yes, finding at least +1 karma point for one line fix
should not be very hard).
The only thing I don't understand completely (but can accept without
complaining nevertheless) is why this applies to *new* packages as well
-- they didn't existed in repos before and anything is better than
nothing...
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
