depcheck test (was Re: measuring success)

[Will Woods]

On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 19:21 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:40:01AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On 7/6/10 8:52 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > > IMHO it should not be a +1 karma but some different flag that is set for
> > > updates that passed the tests.
> > 
> > Using karma is viewed as the path of least resistance to getting support
> > in current bodhi for this.  For future bodhi yes, it makes some sense to
> > use some different flagging mechanism.
> 
> Essentially using a different flag is just re-using the code used to
> flag a package as critpath-approved only with a different name.
> Therefore it should not need that much more effort.

Feel free to help write the code to prove this point!

> Btw. using the "path of least resistance" to implement policy
> changes seems to be what makes the new workflows suck for package
> maintainers, e.g. with the change in place using a auto-karma value of 1
> will become 0.

Well that's only one *proposed* idea. We could just as easily have
autoqa give a comment with neutral (0) karma on updates which pass, and
-1 on failed updates, which would serve all the same purposes. That
might be a better idea, actually.

-w