BEWARE: a problematic glibc made it to stable (F16)

[Adam Williamson]

On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 17:04 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:

> The fail(*), imo, was with 12.999 going stable containing known-regressions.  
> So, any suggestions, if any, to prevent any similar series of events?

We have lots of suggestions. As I've said at least fifty times, it's
pointless going too far with the slapping of band-aids on the current
karma system, because it's fundamentally too simplistic: it's never
going to be perfect and there is a definite point of diminishing returns
if we keep screwing with it.

What we need is the non-numeric karma system which Bodhi 2.0 is supposed
to be bringing in. No amount of tweaking with the rules of Bodhi 1.0 is
going to Magically Solve Everything, because '1, 0, -1' is simply too
limited a vocabulary to express everything we need to express about
updates.

While we're fiddling, though, I do think negative karma should have more
value than it currently does.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net