On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 16:31 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 15:49 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > The system could do a count of how many of each type of feedback any > > given update has received, but I don't think there's any way we can > > sensibly do some kind of mathematical operation on those numbers and > > have a 'rating' for the update. Such a system would always give odd / > > undesirable results in some cases, I think (just as the current one > > does). I believe the above system would be sufficiently clear that there > > would be no need for such a number, and we would be able to evaluate > > updates properly based just on the information listed. > > > > What are everyone's thoughts on this? Thanks! > > Unless we use some sort of value for this feedback, there won't be able > to be a way to autopush the update once criteria is reached. Relying on > everybody to remember to go back to their update and click the button to > make the update go won't work. In that case I'd favour a formula along the lines of "X reports of 'successful fix' or 'no regression' with no reports of 'regression'" (where the maintainer sets X). I think the fact that an update can go out even if several people report encountering regressions is one of the biggest flaws in the current setup. Any report of 'regression found' should prevent an auto-push. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
