More unhelpful update descriptions

[Michael Scherer]

Le mercredi 03 juillet 2013 à 09:54 +0200, Johannes Lips a écrit :
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
>         Le mercredi 03 juillet 2013 à 09:44 +0200, Johannes Lips a
>         écrit :
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:32 AM, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com>
>         wrote:
>         >         On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Dan Mashal
>         >         <dan.mashal at gmail.com> wrote:
>         >         > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Pierre-Yves Luyten
>         >         <py at luyten.fr> wrote:
>         >         >> Not sure if it makes any sense but maybe could we
>         have
>         >         something like
>         >         >> "freeze tag changes until desc is better".
>         >         >>
>         >         >> I propose this because testers will not _really_
>         want to -1
>         >         karma, and
>         >         >> as a maintainer it might be a bit hard, but with
>         a good
>         >         reminder like
>         >         >> "not pushed to stable until desc is better" I
>         would have
>         >         made less
>         >         >> mistakes
>         >         >>
>         >         >> yes not being reminded is not an excuse and such
>         proposal
>         >         would not save
>         >         >> time, still I believe it could help more than
>         hurt
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         > There is already a perfect example of this.
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >
>         https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-11846/selinux-policy-3.12.1-57.fc19
>         >
>         >
>         >         This is also a perfect example of useless "does not
>         fix bug x"
>         >         karma.
>         >         If it is not *worse* then the previous package there
>         is no
>         >         reason to
>         >         give it negative karma.
>         > If it doesn't fix the bugs, the update should fix, it is
>         appropriate
>         > to give negative karma. Otherwise the bugs would be closed,
>         when it
>         > becomes stable, but won't be fixed.
>         
>         
>         That's not what the guidelines say :
>         
>         https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Update_feedback_guidelines#Update_does_not_fix_a_bug_it_claims_to
> Could be, but if the still broken bugs are going to be closed, when
> the update becomes stable, doesn't really help, or? Given that this is
> enabled in the update.

Then we could decide on :
- better process, ie "if you happen to notice a bug is not fixed by
update, please reopen it"
- better tooling, ie a way to say "do not close this bug" to bodhi.
Either a message in bodhi, or something on bugzilla side.


-- 
Michael Scherer

-- 
Michael Scherer