old_testing_critpath notifications

[Luke Macken]

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
> >> update.
> > 
> > Also, if karma automatism was enabled for that update, it would have been
> > queued for pushing right when it was approved.
> > 
> > luke
> 
> 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.

luke