On 07/13/2010 04:59 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 03:55:46PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
>> This patch looks good at a first glance -- it's pretty much exactly what
>> I was planning to do. The only tweak that is needed is to ensure that
>> anonymous people can't pretend to be AutoQ
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 03:55:46PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
> This patch looks good at a first glance -- it's pretty much exactly what
> I was planning to do. The only tweak that is needed is to ensure that
> anonymous people can't pretend to be AutoQA:
>
> -if comment.author == "a
On 07/06/2010 04:09 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 03:06:37PM -0400, Will Woods wrote:
>> 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
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 11:34 -0400, Will Woods wrote:
>
> > If there are any other questions, feel free to ask.
> >
> > -w
>
> Did you get to look at the nss-softokn situation (details of which I
> sent to autoqa-devel) yet? How hard wou
Till Maas wrote:
> 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.
That would be a good thing! It'd make all those requireme
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:09:34PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 03:06:37PM -0400, Will Woods wrote:
> > 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:
> > > > >
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 11:25:01AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 07/06/2010 10:21 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > 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 effo
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 03:06:37PM -0400, Will Woods wrote:
> 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
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 11:34 -0400, Will Woods wrote:
> If there are any other questions, feel free to ask.
>
> -w
Did you get to look at the nss-softokn situation (details of which I
sent to autoqa-devel) yet? How hard would it be to catch that?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 19:21 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> 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.
>
> Btw. using the "path of least resistance" to imple
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 vi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/06/2010 10:21 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> 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.
critpath approved i
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 11:34:25AM -0400, Will Woods wrote:
> I'll attempt to give a brief summary here. First you need to understand
> that there are three states for a package that has been built with the
> hope of being pushed as an update:
> * 'candidate': freshly-built packages intended for u
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:40:01AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 7/6/10 8:52 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 11:34:25AM -0400, Will Woods wrote:
> >
> >> Once we're satisfied that depcheck does the right thing, we will
> >> probably set it up to start adding automatic +1 karma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/6/10 8:52 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 11:34:25AM -0400, Will Woods wrote:
>
>> Once we're satisfied that depcheck does the right thing, we will
>> probably set it up to start adding automatic +1 karma from 'autoqa' when
>> upda
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 11:34:25AM -0400, Will Woods wrote:
> Once we're satisfied that depcheck does the right thing, we will
> probably set it up to start adding automatic +1 karma from 'autoqa' when
> updates pass the automated test suite (depcheck and possibly other tests
> - rpmlint, rpmguard
16 matches
Mail list logo
