Proven tester wiki love

mike cloaked mike.cloaked at
Wed Jul 7 19:29:27 UTC 2010

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at> wrote:

> Thinking about it, though, we could consider a slightly different
> process for the kernel, as it's a component that's *extremely* subject
> to different experiences for different users. I'm not sure the workflow
> we've designed will work terribly well for kernels. I suspect it'll be
> all too easy for a kernel which actually contains a major regression to
> be approved; all it needs is for a proventester who doesn't happen to
> own the hardware concerned to find it works fine on their system, and
> file a +1, and anyone else to file a +1 too, and it'd be approved, even
> though someone who does own the hardware might come by and test an hour
> later and find the problem...
> we might want to design a system for the kernel where all proventesters
> hold off posting positive feedback for a day or two, until several
> proventesters and regular testers have had the chance to check for
> regressions.

That was exactly my thought too - I saw these kernel updates were
there but thought that to satisfy the current criteria as best I could
I would wait and see what comments that came in to bodhi over the next
day or so looked like and then install and test. If I then saw no
negatives, and my own tests found no problems then I felt +1 would be
valid, but I wanted re-assurance from people here first. It would seem
that in this situation neutral karma from a proventester would not be
particularly useful as the package would not get the necessary push to
stable unless a proventester gives +1. If this is acceptable as a way
forward I would be happy with that but as you say for the kernel
perhaps an additional paragraph in the draft would be useful.

mike c

More information about the test mailing list