Rethinking proventester and critpath
mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
Tue Nov 1 13:59:13 UTC 2011
It's a common complaint that it's too difficult to get updates to
critpath packages through the update system at the moment. We've been
looking into trying to make that easier without just dropping the
critpath requirements, and one thing we looked at was whether the
requirement for positive karma from proventesters was a net benefit.
Thankfully this is the kind of thing that we can actually generate
numbers for. Luke pulled some statistics which are available at
The relevant section here is the set of packages that have (a)
sufficient positive karma to be pushed, but (b) negative proventester
karma - that is, the packages where negative proventester karma
prevented a push.
Straight off, we can see that these amount to 1-2% of all critpath
updates. It's simply not common for proventester to make a difference to
the outcome. If we look at the individual packages, things get even more
interesting. Many of the updates receive a mixture of proventester
karma, so even with the negative the push would still go ahead. As far
as I can tell:
are the only two updates where the proventester karma requirement would
have made a difference, out of 1942 critpath updates that made it to
stable. That doesn't seem like a great hit rate.
So, assuming I'm not grossly misanalysing the data, it seems that we
could drop the proventester requirement from critical path updates with
a negligable change in the quality of the updates. Thoughts?
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
More information about the devel