The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken
awilliam at redhat.com
Sat Nov 20 06:04:24 UTC 2010
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 17:22 -0500, Luke Macken wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:46:36AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 14:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > It's absolutely crystal clear to me that we don't have enough tester
> > > manpower to make the current policy workable; it's past time to stop
> > > denying that. I'd suggest narrowing the policy to a small number of
> > > critical packages, for which there might be some hope of it actually
> > > working as designed.
> > BTW, another point worth noting is that there is not actually a specific
> > rule against +1ing your own updates. It's 'frowned upon', I guess, but
> > actually I think it's probably workable to say it's fine for the
> > developer to +1 their own update in Bodhi: *as long as you actually have
> > tested it*. For non-critpath updates especially. The Bodhi system is
> > essentially an honor system anyway. So how I'd see this working is if it
> > becomes clear that some maintainer is gaming the system by just +1ing
> > everything they submit, even if it actually turns out to be broken, we
> > look at saying they can't +1 their own updates any more. But if you
> > actually are conscientiously testing your own updates, that's probably
> > worth a +1 in Bodhi, for me.
> The ability to +1 your own updates was disapproved by FESCo, and will be
> disabled in a future version of bodhi.
hum, that wasn't well publicised, and I wasn't aware of it. (I should
probably show up to more FESCo meetings...picture FESCo members going
'no, no, really, it's fine!') I'd disagree, for the reasons above.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
More information about the devel