On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 09:36 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Roman Kennke <rkennke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Would it make sense to require more karma than just the default 3? > > Looking at: > > > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-8824/kernel-3.4.0-1.fc17 > > > > I see that there are 5 oks and 2 denys, which actually point to bug > > reports, both sound fairly important. How does the karma system work if, > > e.g., update requires +3, the update gets +4 and -1, and this -1 is > > something that can be considered a release critical bug? data corruption > > sounds quite release-critical? Is there a mechanism that prevents the > > update to happen in this case? > > Good questions. > > The person that submits the update gets emails for every comment added > to the update. This particular one had a couple things that happened > though. > > 1) It got the requisite karma for stable rather quickly > 2) Justin was on vacation when the negative karma was submitted. Bodhi > only emails the update submitter and the rest of the kernel team didn't > notice. > > I'm sure that it would have been pulled if Justin was actually around > or if the rest of the kernel team had remembered to go check the > update. It's something that can be looked at in the future. This can also serve as my quarterly reminder that Bodhi 2.0 is _still_ supposed to be coming, with much better feedback features. The simple +/- points system in Bodhi 1.0 isn't really adequate for any number of scenarios, including this one. I have posted before about what benefits a better feedback system would have: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/159874.html -- 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
