On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 08:30 +0000, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:16:56 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 21:50 +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > >> threshold after which we could assume that the packager *and* testers > >> know what they're doing, and approve the update without testing the > >> affected functionality? > > > > We may have to look at something like this if this situation keeps > > happening. > > Another thing I mean to do is to patch fedora-easy-karma to allow people > to blacklist packages from their update list. Too many people voting 0 > and just say "not tested" right now. > > Adam, any idea whether this is a good idea or not? On one hand we want > people to say "hey, I install this update and my machine still boots" > because that's at least (slightly) informative. But I wonder how many > testers we lose by the tedium of seeing the same package over and over > again (and yet the packages come with the base system and are rather > tedious to remove -- X drivers, RAID utilities and so on) I dunno, really, I guess I'm kinda neutral on it. I don't find it that hard to just hit 's' (which I use for 'skip' an update I don't want to comment on...), but hey. Proventesters at least shouldn't file information-free 0 votes, it's in the proven tester instructions not to. So if you see anyone doing it, ask them nicely not to :) -- 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
