Linking negative karma points to a reported bug

[Jóhann B. Guðmundsson]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Karel Volný <kvolny at redhat.com> wrote:

> Dne Čt 28. června 2012 12:11:02, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson napsal(a):
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Karel Volný
> <kvolny at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > I simply don't like this idea, there is enough bugzilla noise
> > > and enough bureaucracy (read: obstacles) for anyone wanting
> > > to contribute (yes, even just clicking +1/-1 karma is a
> > > valuable contribution ...)
> >
> > This is no additional bureocrasy thou you claim it to be
>
> please elaborate on this
>
> situation now:
> step 1. follow a link to bodhi
> step 2. click "Add a comment"
> (optional) step 3. write a comment what doesn't work for you
> step 4. click "does not work"
> step 5. click "Add Comment"
>
> your proposal:
> step 1. follow a link to bodhi
> step 2. click "Add a comment"
> step 3. open Bugzilla in another window
> step 4. click New
> steps 5.-96. do all the things you have to do to properly file a
> bug
> step 97. return to bodhi
> step 98. write a comment which includes the newly reported bug
> number
> step 99. "click does not work"
> step 100. click "Add Comment"
>
> you really don't see anything additional in the second case?
>

No since the reporter should have already done all the steps involving the
bug reporter which states either if this update introduced a regression or
did not fix a bug that was claimed to be fixed in the update.


>
> > and please do sell/explain it further what value you see in
> > having reporters to just click +1/-1
>
> I see whether someone actually bothered to test the update, and
> what is the result
>


Right right could you point me to all the test cases for the packages you
maintain that reporter should follow to properly test relevant's updated
that is if they exist and if you happen to be one of the few that actually
have some test cases for reporters to follow could you provide me to the
link for the rest?

The case is we discussed this long time ago here in the QA community before
you or Adamw or Tim joined and I can tell without a doubt there has been
little to nothing changed since then in that regard.

Providing +1 karma in Bodhi today gives at best the meaning that an
reporter updated and did not hit *notice* any regression, not that he
conducted any extensive testing on the relevant component being updated.



>
> > Btw way please follow [1]
> > 1.
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines#Proper_po
> > sting_style
>
> it was directed to a topic as a whole, not to a specific
> paragraph of your text ... sorry for not removing the original
> message not to "increase the size of the daily digests" but I'd
> find it more "highly confusing and incoherent" if I'd just
> deleted it
>
> btw, please follow
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines#Be_Courteous
> (or is it just me who finds it at least a bit strange to start
> the thread by ill-founded, as Adam pointed out, attack on FESCO?)
>
>

There is nothing I'll founded in my claims against FESCO sticking their
nose into our business they ( Atleast the people that where in it at that
time )  in conjunction with FPC ( and again the people that where in it at
that time ) have already contributed enough in preventing things being
better than they could be with regards to QA .

It's us ( QA+Releng ) that have to implement maintain and oversee these
processes to the best of our ability and a yay or nay at some meeting from
people that aren't actively working on this stuff makes absolutely no sense

It's us QA Community in conjunction with Releng Community that ought to be
making these decision period.

JBG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20120628/c4074351/attachment.html>