John, Son of Clay.

> Subject: Re: Proven tester wiki love
> From: awilliam@redhat.com
> To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 12:16:47 -0700
>
>
> Actually, re-reading them, both versions tend to emphasize the negative
> feedback scenarios more than the positive. We should fix that. Positive
> feedback is in a way more important than negative, because we *need*
> proven testers to leave at least +1 on each critpath update (that
> doesn't have a problem, obviously) or it will not get published. We
> should probably explicitly call out that, in general, if you don't hit
> any of the negative or neutral feedback scenarios discussed, you should
> leave positive feedback.
>
> Thinking about it, though, we could consider a slightly different
> process for the kernel, as it's a component that's *extremely* subject
> to different experiences for different users. I'm not sure the workflow
> we've designed will work terribly well for kernels. I suspect it'll be
> all too easy for a kernel which actually contains a major regression to
> be approved; all it needs is for a proventester who doesn't happen to
> own the hardware concerned to find it works fine on their system, and
> file a +1, and anyone else to file a +1 too, and it'd be approved, even
> though someone who does own the hardware might come by and test an hour
> later and find the problem...
>
> we might want to design a system for the kernel where all proventesters
> hold off posting positive feedback for a day or two, until several
> proventesters and regular testers have had the chance to check for
> regressions.
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>
> --
> test mailing list
> test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test