On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 19:21 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:40:01AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 7/6/10 8:52 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > IMHO it should not be a +1 karma but some different flag that is set for
> > updates that passed the tests.
>
> Using karma is viewed as the path of least resistance to getting support
> in current bodhi for this. For future bodhi yes, it makes some sense to
> use some different flagging mechanism.
Essentially using a different flag is just re-using the code used to
flag a package as critpath-approved only with a different name.
Therefore it should not need that much more effort.
Feel free to help write the code to prove this point!
Btw. using the "path of least resistance" to implement
policy
changes seems to be what makes the new workflows suck for package
maintainers, e.g. with the change in place using a auto-karma value of 1
will become 0.
Well that's only one *proposed* idea. We could just as easily have
autoqa give a comment with neutral (0) karma on updates which pass, and
-1 on failed updates, which would serve all the same purposes. That
might be a better idea, actually.
-w