On Qua, 2015-10-21 at 02:22 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > The testers write "works for me" or report a new bug. When things work, > > there's nothing to evaluate. Doing the counting by hand is just a way to > > waste time. > > 10 "works for me" and 1 "deletes all my data" do not make a quality of +9. > They mean a package that should be unpushed ASAP and most definitely NEVER > be pushed to stable. > > I mostly ignore generic "works for me" feedback with no details. It is not > useful. I mainly care about whether there was any legitimate negative > feedback or not. (Unfortunately, there is also plenty of invalid negative > feedback, e.g., regressions that are actually caused by other updates, "does > not fix bug #nnnnnnn" when it was never claimed to be fixed, etc.) Kevin, Sounds like the experiences with an update with 50 packages like a KDE , but most cases are just a leaf package, which a "works for me" is a good feedback, for me . Conclusion bodhi auto-karma are in the correct proportions , and should /can be adjust for popular packages . What I'm trying point out, after a general availability of a release, I'm a beta tester, I disable update-testings repo and after some weeks I do a: dnf list extras, I see many packages that still in update-testing and yes I can make dnf distro-sync, and I can downgrade a bunch of packages but isn't it more logical push that packages to stable ?, that way all users (beta testers and others) as the same experience -- Sérgio M. B. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
