On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Michael Scherer <misc@zarb.org> wrote:
Le mercredi 03 juillet 2013 à 09:44 +0200, Johannes Lips a écrit :
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:32 AM, drago01 <drago01@gmail.com> wrote:
>         On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Dan Mashal
>         <dan.mashal@gmail.com> wrote:
>         > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Pierre-Yves Luyten
>         <py@luyten.fr> wrote:
>         >> Not sure if it makes any sense but maybe could we have
>         something like
>         >> "freeze tag changes until desc is better".
>         >>
>         >> I propose this because testers will not _really_ want to -1
>         karma, and
>         >> as a maintainer it might be a bit hard, but with a good
>         reminder like
>         >> "not pushed to stable until desc is better" I would have
>         made less
>         >> mistakes
>         >>
>         >> yes not being reminded is not an excuse and such proposal
>         would not save
>         >> time, still I believe it could help more than hurt
>         >
>         >
>         > There is already a perfect example of this.
>         >
>         >
>         https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-11846/selinux-policy-3.12.1-57.fc19
>
>
>         This is also a perfect example of useless "does not fix bug x"
>         karma.
>         If it is not *worse* then the previous package there is no
>         reason to
>         give it negative karma.
> If it doesn't fix the bugs, the update should fix, it is appropriate
> to give negative karma. Otherwise the bugs would be closed, when it
> becomes stable, but won't be fixed.

That's not what the guidelines say :

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Update_feedback_guidelines#Update_does_not_fix_a_bug_it_claims_to
Could be, but if the still broken bugs are going to be closed, when the update becomes stable, doesn't really help, or? Given that this is enabled in the update.
 


--
Michael Scherer