On 3 July 2013 08:47, 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 > >
Quoting: > If you find an update does not fix a bug it claims to fix, this is not > usually a case where you should file negative karma. > Only file negative karma if that is the *only* change in the update. If an > update claims to fix five bugs, but only fixes four > of them, it is not helpful to post negative karma as this may result in the > update being rejected, which does not help > those suffering from the bug that wasn't fixed, and hurts those suffering > from the bugs that are fixed. Tooling issues aside (and it is undesireable that bugs should get marked fixed if they haven't been) I think this rule is wrong under a strict reading. If an update claims to fix two bugs and fixes neither then neither is the *only* change (highlighting is on the guidelines page), yet obviously the rationale for this rule does not apply in that case. Pedantry aside, there is another case: where the update is meant to fix a bug and the maintainer has tried to do this by pulling in an upstream update that might not otherwise have been picked up (e.g. a git hash which has added a feature in the process of fixing the bug). The upstream update might be part of the change, but it was not the purpose of the change. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
