On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 02:19 +0100, Henrik Nordström wrote: > tis 2011-11-22 klockan 13:03 -0800 skrev Adam Williamson: > > > * Any custom choices the package maintainer opts to provide, via some > > kind of interface to Bodhi > > * Checkboxes per bug assigned to the update for indicating that the > update have been verified to fix that specific bug. Oop, yeah, I knew I was forgetting something - that was another major one. Thanks. > * When the update consists of multiple packages, ability to indicate > which of those packages the given feedback is about. Good idea. > And "checkboxes" should all be tri-value with Werks / Not tested / Fails Yeah, 'not tested' would be the default. > If any is set to Fails then feedback comment is mandatory, otherwise > optional. > > > 1. Any update that is marked as 'critpath breaking' by a FAS-registered > > tester would be blocked from going any further in the update process > > without manual intervention (no autopushes at all) > > I would not limit that to critpath. > > Any update that have any negative feedback should be blocked from > authpush. And maintainer should be alerted that there is negative > feedback when trying to push the package. We could tweak the rules here for sure, that's kind of the attraction. I was focusing on the critpath case as an obvious one that benefits, but indeed, we could look at interpreting certain negative results more aggressively for non-critpath too. But right now we're riding our wish-horses: I didn't want to get too far into the details, it was more just an illustration of the kinds of capabilities non-numeric feedback will give us, to make it really clear how much the simplistic current feedback model is holding us back. Thanks for the ideas though! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
