Fedora QA ? - Re: What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

[James Antill]

On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 08:04 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> wrote:
> > Shrug, karma is optional. Many maintainers appreciate it (I do), if you
> > don't, then don't use it.
> 
> Technically.... bugzilla is optional too.  I'm doing a good job of ignoring it.
> 
> And I think this line of argumentation is sort of moot. I think the
> problem is we aren't getting enough feedback into bodhi to know
> whether or not bodhi is competing with bugzilla.
> 
> I don't think the problem is the design of bodhi "the webservice", I
> think the problem is we don't have a streamlined way to pull feedback
> from users in a timely manner to impact updates-testing.
> 
> In aggregate how many karma votes do we get averaged for all current
> updates-testing packages in a given week?
> 
> 1) We need bodhi integration into PK, so people who choose to use
> updates-testing get timely reminders and client side help in send in
> feedback for each and every update in testing they consume.

 Yes! ... but good luck.

> 2) We need updates-testing enablement to be an in your face install
> time option, where we make the case to users to use updates-testing to
> help other users avoid problems

 No, what you really want is your package manager integration so you can
say:

1. "You searched for FOO", there is version 1-1 in your Fedora release
version 1-2 has been in testing for X days and has Y karma, and version
2-1 is in "rawhide" but is installable with no / Z number of required
packages.

2. I noticed that FOO package just crashed, there is an update available
in testing which fixes these BugZillas:

12234666 - Random crashes when doing XYZ

etc.

...but, again, it doesn't fit into the design/philosophy of PK so it'll
be a huge amount of work.

-- 
James Antill <james at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora