Important kernel update should not break stuff

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 09:36 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Roman Kennke <rkennke at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Would it make sense to require more karma than just the default 3?
> > Looking at:
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-8824/kernel-3.4.0-1.fc17
> >
> > I see that there are 5 oks and 2 denys, which actually point to bug
> > reports, both sound fairly important. How does the karma system work if,
> > e.g., update requires +3, the update gets +4 and -1, and this -1 is
> > something that can be considered a release critical bug? data corruption
> > sounds quite release-critical? Is there a mechanism that prevents the
> > update to happen in this case?
> 
> Good questions.
> 
> The person that submits the update gets emails for every comment added
> to the update.  This particular one had a couple things that happened
> though.
> 
> 1) It got the requisite karma for stable rather quickly
> 2) Justin was on vacation when the negative karma was submitted.  Bodhi
> only emails the update submitter and the rest of the kernel team didn't
> notice.
> 
> I'm sure that it would have been pulled if Justin was actually around
> or if the rest of the kernel team had remembered to go check the
> update.  It's something that can be looked at in the future.

This can also serve as my quarterly reminder that Bodhi 2.0 is _still_
supposed to be coming, with much better feedback features. The simple
+/- points system in Bodhi 1.0 isn't really adequate for any number of
scenarios, including this one. I have posted before about what benefits
a better feedback system would have:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/159874.html
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net