Bodhi karma feature request

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Monday, 01 March 2010 at 23:34, Doug Ledford wrote:
[...]
> One could argue that the current bodhi karma system is simply too
> simplistic for real use cases.

There's nothing to argue. It's rather obvious. :)

> Maybe instead of just +1 -1, there should be:
> 
> Fixes my problem
> Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
> problem supposedly fixed by this update just noting that their system
> still works ok with the update)
> Doesn't fix my problem (but doesn't necessarily imply it's any worse
> than before)
> Causes new problems (which should, IMO, be an automatic veto of any push
> to stable, requiring intervention to override)

Great choices. This covers all bases, I think.

> I could see situations where you would want to push updates to stable if
> say the update was supposed to solve multiple bugs, but turns out it
> only solves a subset of those bugs and doesn't cause new ones, so you
> would have some FMP, maybe some WFM, some DFMP, but no CNP.  You'd
> probably just need to leave it up to the maintainer to decided if the
> bugs that are solved are important enough to push to stable before
> respinning another attempt at the ones that weren't solved.

This is an excellent idea, and big improvement over current purely numeric
karma system in bodhi. +1 to implementing that.

Regards,
R.

-- 
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
        -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"