On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 14:43 -0500, Randy Barlow wrote:
On 03/06/2018 07:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Removing it is one choice, sure. Looking at those ideas again and
> deciding if we want to actually go ahead and implement any of them is
> another choice.
Cool thanks for the history there. I actually think those ideas sound
pretty cool and I'd +1 getting them in place (though I really can't
personally do it soon because F28 but patches welcome).
Do you think the ideas require a separate karma feedback though? What if
we did the ideas you talked about in response to a regular -1 on a
critpath package? I.e., just the same karma button that we use for
normal updates, but on critpath updates the alarm bells are bigger?
There's two problems with that:
1) The critpath can be broken by non-critpath packages, because our
critpath definition is really not *close* to correct. It's just a list
we made up one day and have not done a great job of updating since. It
is not in any way 'validated'. Until recently, it didn't have bash,
setup or selinux-policy in it, for instance.
2) Critpath packages can be broken in ways that don't break the
critical path. selinux-policy is a great example there, in fact; a -1
for an selinux-policy update *could* mean "this update renders all
systems unbootable", or it *could* mean "this update broke some obscure
leaf package two people are running".
If we do think there's a good reason to keep two kinds of karma
glorious feature, perhaps we could just hide the critpath karma feedback
buttons in the UI for now just so they don't get confused with the
normal karma, which can lead to some issues since it doesn't really do
That sounds reasonable to me indeed.
Or another easy thing I could do server side is autodetect
someone setting critpath karma to -1 and forcing their karma to also be
-1 when that happens.
Also seems reasonable.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net