Those are all good points. Our rating system is really good - it maps to rigorous assessment of "what matters". My guess is people will strongly prefer charms that have 3-star or more ratings. So that was why I was suggesting that we make a few "trump" categories, in other words, even if you score highly on all the other criteria, absence of comprehensive tests limits you to 2-stars. That's a nice incentive for people with a basically-working charm to invest in tests.
Mark On 13/12/13 18:42, Jorge O. Castro wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Vincent JOBARD <[email protected]> wrote: >>> This way, we let people get charms in that work-for-them-and-others, but >>> the limitations are reflected in our rating of the charm. >> >> Well with only the 2 stars rating, users will not know that the charm is >> correctly tested. I mean an other charms that doesn't include test, but >> which be loved by people can have a two stars. Maybe an "approuve" mark or a >> trusted label can be used ? > We have the equivalent of the "approve" mark, it's the charms that say > "Recommended by the Juju team" and have full icons and can be deployed > from the store as the default `juju deploy mysql`. This policy would > apply to those charms only. I think that if we're going to recommend > things that we should ensure that what we give people is well tested. > > An errant commit or simple MP can break a charm subtlety (and this has > happened) that a reviewer might have missed. People need to know that > what they deploy out of the store has been tested; a guy deploying an > entire bundle should be spending his time on his application, not > worrying about whether haproxy is going to work or not. Also, personal > namespaces are always available. In the case of the popular charms > that work for us and others, that would be reflected in the stats, and > we'd notice popular personal charms and that would lead us to ask the > maintainers about what they need to get tests in, is there anyway we > can help them, and so on. The onus is on us to make adding tests easy > for charm authors. > > I also think that it's much easier to start strict now, and possibly > loosen up over time depending on what charm authors and contributors > tell us, than it is to start loose and try to tighten up after the > fact. > -- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
