On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 09:07 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 02:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > > I fully agree with you testers giving +1 is not even close to proper > > > validation, but what alternative to get proper validation do you propose > > > as an improvement? Dropping autokarma would replace broken validation > > > with *no* validation; that's not an improvement. > > > > The proposal here is only to abolish AUTOkarma, i.e. to require the > > maintainer to manually push the update even if it has enough karma. In other > > words, remove the "[ ] Enable karma automatism" checkbox and the 2 > > thresholds that go with it from Bodhi. (Just ensure that non-critpath > > updates can always be manually pushed once they get a karma of +1, because > > last I checked, this was STILL broken in Bodhi and required changing the > > stable threshold to 1 to be able to push the update.) > > > > This is not about the policies to not allow the maintainer to push without > > karma, though I happen to think those should also be abolished. (If you ask > > why: Because I think the maintainer is better placed to judge the quality of > > his/her update than an arbitrary number of people with nothing more than a > > FAS account. Feedback from the testers should only be informative.) > > > > But again, I think that even with no other policy change, just removing the > > "karma automatism" misfeature from Bodhi would be an improvement. > > So here's an idea I do want to float on devel@ before taking it to FESCo > (and run by the AutoQA folks), but how about this? > > We don't currently 'enforce' the AutoQA depcheck and upgradepath tests > as we don't consider them reliable enough. OK. But are they at least > reliable enough that we could disable karma automatism if one fails, > with a note to the update submitter that they can push the update > manually or re-enable automatism if they find the failure is a false > negative? > > We've had two unfortunate broken-depcheck updates in the past week, now > - libreoffice and dnf. In the libreoffice case, oddly, depcheck was > reported as "PASSED" even though the log shows all sorts of dep issues - > http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/758667-autotest/virt06.qa/depcheck/results/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-.html - but depcheck did catch the dnf one: As this got more-or-less positive responses from everyone who responded to it (via mail or IRC, I brought it up in the QA weekly meeting too), I've filed a FESCo ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1242 Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
