On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 04:49:07PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
On 12/01/2010 04:40 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:41:20AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:23 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
>>> That being said, F14 went out with a broken mdadm *purely* because of
>>> this policy.
>>> Evidently my update was approved somewhere along the way, but because of
>>> the volume of bodhi spam I get, I missed it.
>> ...so what you're saying is that F14 did not in fact go out with a
>> broken mdadm *purely* because of the policy, but in a small part because
>> of the policy and in a large part because you don't read / filter your
>> emails carefully enough.
>>> So I'm not sure if it
>>> could have made F14 final or not, but I know it didn't because I was
>>> working on other things at the time.
>> bodhi - 2010-10-14 22:36:08
>> Critical path update approved
>> The final change deadline was 10-18; you had four days to push the
> Also, if karma automatism was enabled for that update, it would have been
> queued for pushing right when it was approved.
I don't enable karma automatism because in the past I've seen people
report testing karma +1 when they did not, in fact, doing anything
useful in terms of testing (aka, they had no software raid devices, yet
they said the system still works...well, duh, it's only used on software
raid devices so if you don't have any, then it doesn't make any
difference to you).
Yep, that happens. There are also people that add +0 comments to
updates saying "Untested". There is an obvious need for more
fine-grained karma types.