On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Michael Scherer <m...@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 <drag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Dan Mashal > > <dan.mas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Pierre-Yves Luyten > > <p...@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 > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
