On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 04:49:07PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 12/01/2010 04:40 PM, Luke Macken wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:41:20AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:23 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> > >>> That being said, F14 went out with a broken mdadm *purely* because of > >>> this policy. > >> > >>> Evidently my update was approved somewhere along the way, but because of > >>> the volume of bodhi spam I get, I missed it. > >> > >> ...so what you're saying is that F14 did not in fact go out with a > >> broken mdadm *purely* because of the policy, but in a small part because > >> of the policy and in a large part because you don't read / filter your > >> emails carefully enough. > >> > >>> So I'm not sure if it > >>> could have made F14 final or not, but I know it didn't because I was > >>> working on other things at the time. > >> > >> bodhi - 2010-10-14 22:36:08 > >> Critical path update approved > >> > >> The final change deadline was 10-18; you had four days to push the > >> update. > > > > Also, if karma automatism was enabled for that update, it would have been > > queued for pushing right when it was approved. > > > > luke > > I don't enable karma automatism because in the past I've seen people > report testing karma +1 when they did not, in fact, doing anything > useful in terms of testing (aka, they had no software raid devices, yet > they said the system still works...well, duh, it's only used on software > raid devices so if you don't have any, then it doesn't make any > difference to you). Yep, that happens. There are also people that add +0 comments to updates saying "Untested". There is an obvious need for more fine-grained karma types. luke -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
