More unhelpful update descriptions

[Adam Williamson]

On 2013-07-03 0:54, Johannes Lips wrote:

>>> 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
>> [2]
> 
> 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.

That is a bureaucratic detail that can be fixed. Priority #1 should 
*always* be pushing out better software: it is wrongheaded to avoid 
pushing out better software because it would cause a minor inconvenience 
in our bug tracking system. We should prioritize pushing out the update 
if it's better than the previous update, and we can deal with re-opening 
incorrectly closed bugs.

If an update *only* claims to fix one bug, and doesn't actually fix it, 
it is appropriate to give it a -1. But if it claims to fix 10 bugs, 
fixes 9, but doesn't fix the tenth (and doesn't make anything else worse 
in a major way, of course) then we really want to push that update out, 
because it makes things better for people. We can deal with the tenth 
bug later.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net