On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thinking about it, though, we could consider a slightly different > process for the kernel, as it's a component that's *extremely* subject > to different experiences for different users. I'm not sure the workflow > we've designed will work terribly well for kernels. I suspect it'll be > all too easy for a kernel which actually contains a major regression to > be approved; all it needs is for a proventester who doesn't happen to > own the hardware concerned to find it works fine on their system, and > file a +1, and anyone else to file a +1 too, and it'd be approved, even > though someone who does own the hardware might come by and test an hour > later and find the problem... > > we might want to design a system for the kernel where all proventesters > hold off posting positive feedback for a day or two, until several > proventesters and regular testers have had the chance to check for > regressions. That was exactly my thought too - I saw these kernel updates were there but thought that to satisfy the current criteria as best I could I would wait and see what comments that came in to bodhi over the next day or so looked like and then install and test. If I then saw no negatives, and my own tests found no problems then I felt +1 would be valid, but I wanted re-assurance from people here first. It would seem that in this situation neutral karma from a proventester would not be particularly useful as the package would not get the necessary push to stable unless a proventester gives +1. If this is acceptable as a way forward I would be happy with that but as you say for the kernel perhaps an additional paragraph in the draft would be useful. -- mike c -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
