On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 10:36 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:43:47 -0700 >> Luke Macken <lmacken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > Unfortunately, bodhi has not had dedicated full-time development >> > resources in a long time. Thankfully, I now have the cycles to put >> > into new features, such as improving the feedback mechanisms. >> > >> > Many components of the "Bodhi 2.0" vision are long-term, and rely on a >> > plethora of other pieces to fall into place, such as >> > python-fedora+fas-openid, koji+mash, taskotron, depcheck-mk-2, and so >> > on. Other pieces of the puzzle can be implemented and deployed >> > incrementally within the current tools now. >> > >> > My focus lately has been around the releng/infra side of the updates >> > process, but for a feature that would make things 'immeasurably >> > better' (even though I think it would actually be measurable :P), I'd >> > be happy to shift gears to the QA/frontend side of things to help get >> > it done sooner rather than later. >> > >> > As far as I can tell, you sent some ideas to a mailing list a few >> > years ago about it, and then Mathieu started a prototype. I can't >> > find any RFEs filed for it, so I'll create one and see what I can do >> > about getting the existing prototype polished and integrated for >> > testing. >> >> It would be absolutely lovely to get a bodhi-dev instance up on a cloud >> node running bodhi2 so we could see where we were and what needed to be >> worked on. >> >> Perhaps we could get interested folks together in irc sometime soon and >> discuss plans/status? > > I'd certainly be up for that. > > The thing I think would be most useful is just a lot more flexibility > over the karma definition: ideally the back end should be extremely > generic, a sort of set of possible conditions you can glue together any > way you like, and we'd provide some common 'templates' for use in > updates (and sensible defaults, of course). The Glorious Vision email > still pretty much holds true, I believe, if you can still find it (yell > if you can't, and I will). > While at it ... can it be less paranoid about who can edit updates please? It is overly restrictive for no real reason. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
