On 03/01/2010 11:27 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 08:07 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> So yeah, I agree it's not a perfect system - detailed suggestions for
>> improving it would be welcome, I'm sure.
>
> Alternatives:
>
> * Abandon it (I don't think this would change anything wrt. to QA in Fedora)
Um. Hard to put this tactfully. You're completely wrong.
Feel free to
disagree.
As I wrote before, "voting on quality" is the wrong approach and a flaw
of the system.
Being actually
*in* QA I have quite a lot of experience with this, and the Bodhi system
has already stopped lots of broken updates being shipped.
Then your experiences
with karma is different than mine.
May-be you experienced a negative comment to let the maintainer revisit
a package? This has nothing to do with the karma votes. It's a
side-effect of the testers utilizing bodhi as communication medium.
Throwing it
out would be insane.
Well, I disagree again. I consider the current karma stuff to
be flawed
and keeping it to be silly - The majority of packages don't receive any
votes and if they are being ignored.
To me the karma voting systems is a means rel-eng utilizes to *cheat
themself*.
> * In cases an update is trying to address a particular bug in
BZ,
> replace let people comment in bugzilla.
You mean, let people check a box to have their comment from Bugzilla put
into Bodhi?
Yes, I had something along these lines in mind.
The idea behind it:
* individual reporters have been facing a bug and BZ'ed it.
* maintainer releases a new package release which is supposed to address
reporter's bug.
Now let all feedback go into reporter's BZ.
Nowadays, in such kind of situations, a maintainer often adds a "Should
be fix in release x.y.rpm, please try" comment and a adds a "BUGFIX,
BZ#NR" to bodhi.
> All the voting/karma stuff does is to let rel-eng believe to be
dealing
> with bad updates, while it actually doesn't cope with the problems it is
> trying to address, it's the wrong tool.
As I said, I just disagree. I have seen many cases where updates that
otherwise would have gone out and caused real pain to real people have
been caught by Bodhi. The fact that some weren't caught by Bodhi doesn't
mean it's useless.
Again, I feel what you might have seen are a very small
subset of
isolated cases ... in the overwhelming majority of cases, this karma
stuff is not being utilized at all ... and even if, it is being ignored.
>> I think it's pretty easy to make a case
>> that Bodhi has had a significant positive impact on the overall quality
>> of the updates that have fully utilized it.
> Well, the only positive impact bodhi had on me was bodhi implementing a
> more or less usable web-frontend, where Fedora had nothing in place
> before. This doesn't mean it is a good system and even less does this
> mean this system is perfect or bug-free.
Didn't I just get done saying it's not perfect or bug-free, but that
doesn't mean the sensible answer is to burn it down?
I didn't say
"burn it down"!!
Bluntly put, I am saying "karma is dysfunctional/conceptionally
inapplicable", the "web GUI leaves much to be desired", "there is no
usable CLI" and "koji/bodji" integration sucks" ... but this is
off-topic, here.
Ralf