Linking negative karma points to a reported bug

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 23:13 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 06/28/2012 09:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > That's not really true. We don't maintain the updates policy, FESCo
> > does.
> 
> Yes that's what I'm saying as in why is Fesco maintaining the update 
> policy instead of us + releng?
> 
> >   We don't maintain Bodhi, infrastructure does. We don't maintain
> > Bugzilla, RH engineering ops does.
> Yeah with regards to Bugzilla, our infrastructure team really ought to 
> be maintaining our own private instance of it. If it continues to be run 
> by RH engineering ops limiting us by some RHEL Customer rules and 
> policies and what not that we have no clues who are then I guess I will 
> have to start going against what I have advocated all these years and 
> recommend that reporters stop using it and report bugs directly upstream 
> as several maintainers within the project has wanted us to do for some time.
> 
> We already have had one project leaving Bugzilla perhaps it's time for 
> us to do it as well.
> 
> > There isn't really much at all in the
> > updates process that is owned/maintained by QA; we just have an obvious
> > responsibility to contribute our testing.
> 
> Arguably that should be changed...

Oh, I see. Well there's obviously a case for that, if we wanted to argue
it, but it's not totally clear cut, as there's obviously a big
'packaging/engineering' component to updates as well as a 'testing'
component, which is why it's currently under FESCo.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net