RFC: Bodhi voting method.

Stephen John Smoogen smooge at gmail.com
Sat Mar 13 15:42:19 UTC 2010


On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:09 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
>> So for most users, when updating to updates-testing (or something
>> straight from bodhi/koji that has not been put in updates-testing) a 0
>> is the most likely response that should be given. A +1 should only be
>> given in cases where a specific test has been done (and should be
>> commented on. Ones without comments should be disregarded before pushing
>> to stable.)
>
> It's a nice effort, thanks. This doesn't reflect how we've been using it
> in practice, though, certainly for F13. We're basically using it as a
> quick 'sanity check'; Bill and I have been happily +1ing any critpath
> package in F13 updates-testing which didn't actually eat our babies,
> even if it has problems.

No problem. I figured it would be a good way to at least give people
who are using Till's scripts to know what to say when. If we get a lot
of 0's it still means its being looked at which fits into the criteria
people were talking about elsewhere.

> I think before we can get down to the nitty-gritty of fleshing out
> specific voting criteria, we should probably agree on exactly what
> extent we want testing to be done. And possibly whether we can really
> represent it with a simple numeric system...

I agree. Its more complicated and trinary logic.

> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning


More information about the test mailing list