On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 20:18 +0100, drago01 wrote: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-1.fc20?_csrf_token=a6a024f6e2d35ad3f3333b8666c1244e215a6aa2 > > > > how can people pretend "installation went smoothly, no issue detected during basic > > document manipulation" for packages which are not installable at all due > > dependencie problems? > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mesa-10.0.3-1.20140206.fc20 > ... again broken dep and someone gave it +1 regardless. You should > know that "someone" very well ;) > > Now seriously auto qa detected the broken dep. Maybe it should give > negative karma even if there are false positives a wrong negative > karma is not the end of the world ... FESco just accepted my proposal to disable autokarma if AutoQA checks fail: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1242 so that'll get done when Luke and Tim have time ( https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/36 ). It doesn't make a lot of sense for AutoQA to give a -1, that's just not...logical. If the test was correct, the update *should not go out*. A -1 doesn't ensure that, it just adds a rather small amount of weight on one side of a scale. The ideal, of course, is to have a test sufficiently reliable that we can simply bar updates from being pushed stable if it doesn't pass. We're working on that: https://bitbucket.org/fedoraqa/depcheck-mk-2/src until it's done, I think disabling autokarma makes somewhat more sense than filing a -1, as a compromise for doing some kind of enforcement with a depcheck that's not sufficiently accurate to be used as a big gun. -- 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
