On 03/02/2010 04:25 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Doug Ledford wrote:
>>> Fixes my problem
>>> Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
>>> problem supposedly fixed by this update just noting that their system
>>> still works
Panu Matilainen writes:
> [...]
> Oh yes. Even just a big red REGRESSION button that stops the update from
> automatically entering stable no matter what the karma votes happen to be
> would be a definite improvement. [...]
Just for completeness, please let's be cautious about giving knobs to
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Doug Ledford wrote:
>> Fixes my problem
>> Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
>> problem supposedly fixed by this update just noting that their system
>> still works ok with the update)
>> Doesn't fix my problem (but does
Doug Ledford wrote:
> Fixes my problem
> Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
> problem supposedly fixed by this update just noting that their system
> still works ok with the update)
> Doesn't fix my problem (but doesn't necessarily imply it's any worse
> than befo
Björn Persson wrote:
> That sounds really good, although I would call the second one "still works
> for me" to emphasize that it's for people for whom the previous release
> also worked.
Right.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> One could argue that the current bodhi karma system is simply too
> simplistic for real use cases. Maybe instead of just +1 -1, there
> should be:
>
> Fixes my problem
> Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
> problem supp
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 17:34 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> One could argue that the current bodhi karma system is simply too
> simplistic for real use cases. Maybe instead of just +1 -1, there
> should be:
>
> Fixes my problem
> Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 00:27 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> With enough data points one can print pretty graphes that show vote
> repartition¹. Those are harder to skew than averages. However, they
> require many data points and bohdi is far from that today
>
> ¹ For example, the bargraphs on
> h
Doug Ledford wrote:
> Split off from the stable pushes in Bodhi thread just because I'd like
> to see it not get lost.
(For your information, you didn't split it off. Your message is marked as a
reply to the one by "Mail Lists" and is displayed in my Kmail as part of
Kevin's enormous thread.)
>
Le lundi 01 mars 2010 à 15:16 -0800, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 17:34 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >
> > One could argue that the current bodhi karma system is simply too
> > simplistic for real use cases. Maybe instead of just +1 -1, there
> > should be:
> >
> > Fixes my pr
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 17:34 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> One could argue that the current bodhi karma system is simply too
> simplistic for real use cases. Maybe instead of just +1 -1, there
> should be:
>
> Fixes my problem
> Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of t
On Monday, 01 March 2010 at 23:34, Doug Ledford wrote:
[...]
> One could argue that the current bodhi karma system is simply too
> simplistic for real use cases.
There's nothing to argue. It's rather obvious. :)
> Maybe instead of just +1 -1, there should be:
>
> Fixes my problem
> Works for me
Doug Ledford wrote:
> One could argue that the current bodhi karma system is simply too
> simplistic for real use cases. Maybe instead of just +1 -1, there
> should be:
>
> Fixes my problem
> Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
> problem supposedly fixed by this u
13 matches
Mail list logo
