Re: This karma stuff is a pain!
On 03/15/2012 08:24 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: Luke Macken does Bodhi. It certainly sounds non-trivial to me, for a start, Bodhi uses FAS and Bugzilla does not. It would be trivial if these decisions would be made by a human who is CCed on both (i.e. the maintainer of the package) rather than by software. Kevin Kofler Policy always hinders the most talented workers (in this case, the best package maintainers). The purpose of policy is to limit the damage a less experienced package maintainer can do. How do we prevent an inexperienced package maintainer from prematurely pushing updates to stable? Perhaps you could allow package maintainers to add karma, but only on a special page. The page has a short blurb explaining karma policy, and if the maintainer wants to add karma himself, they have to click the reason they're adding karma. ( ) Works for me Comment in bugzilla ( ) etc.. (other acceptable reasons) This is probably only worth the effort if there is more than one acceptable reason, and they are sufficiently common. Emanuel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: This karma stuff is a pain!
Le jeudi 15 mars 2012 à 12:49 -0400, John Ellson a écrit : Can we just generate karma from a comment in bugzilla please? Having to find some other weird place to indicate that a fix works for me is a real pain. Have you tried fedora-easy-karma ? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Easy_Karma -- Michael Scherer -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: This karma stuff is a pain!
On 03/16/2012 05:13 AM, Michael Scherer wrote: Le jeudi 15 mars 2012 à 12:49 -0400, John Ellson a écrit : Can we just generate karma from a comment in bugzilla please? Having to find some other weird place to indicate that a fix works for me is a real pain. Have you tried fedora-easy-karma ? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Easy_Karma This is supposed to be easy? Run fedora-cert, included with fedora-easy-karma as a dependency, to set up a certificate with your FAS credentials. I'm sure karma is useful to Release-Engineering. I just think the scope is wrong for a bug reporter. Take, for example: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/NetworkManager-0.9.3.995-0.6.git20120314.fc17 The update contains fixes for three problems: 800690, 798102, 802540 I contributed to the first bug, 800690, and duly tested and reported works for me, but I had no involvement in the other two, so I'm not in a position to judge their karma. I think these release updates should automatically gain partial, per-bug karma from works for me in the bug reports. karma for the update in total needs to come from people in a release-engineering role, rather than people in a bug reporting/fixing/testing role. I agree that people using an update testing repository are reasonable candidates for the release-engineering role, but bug reporting/fixing/testing role doesn't require update testing. The bugs fixes might be tested directly from koji, or from some private builds, or even from local patching. I am trying to be constructive here. We're all busy people. I just think that karma is outside of a reasonable workflow for a bug reporter. John -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: This karma stuff is a pain!
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM, John Ellson john.ell...@comcast.net wrote: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/NetworkManager-0.9.3.995-0.6.git20120314.fc17 The update contains fixes for three problems: 800690, 798102, 802540 I contributed to the first bug, 800690, and duly tested and reported works for me, but I had no involvement in the other two, so I'm not in a position to judge their karma. Looking at this specific case, I think it would have been appropriate for dcbw to go ahead and add karma to this update, with a note that this is proxy karma and linking to your comment #10 on that bug. I regularly add karma to updates in Bodhi myself, but I've also seen devs add proxy karma for me in order to move things along. - Ken -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: This karma stuff is a pain!
On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 12:15 -0400, John Ellson wrote: On 03/16/2012 05:13 AM, Michael Scherer wrote: Le jeudi 15 mars 2012 à 12:49 -0400, John Ellson a écrit : Can we just generate karma from a comment in bugzilla please? Having to find some other weird place to indicate that a fix works for me is a real pain. Have you tried fedora-easy-karma ? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Easy_Karma This is supposed to be easy? Run fedora-cert, included with fedora-easy-karma as a dependency, to set up a certificate with your FAS credentials. I'm sure karma is useful to Release-Engineering. I just think the scope is wrong for a bug reporter. Take, for example: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/NetworkManager-0.9.3.995-0.6.git20120314.fc17 The update contains fixes for three problems: 800690, 798102, 802540 I contributed to the first bug, 800690, and duly tested and reported works for me, but I had no involvement in the other two, so I'm not in a position to judge their karma. I think these release updates should automatically gain partial, per-bug karma from works for me in the bug reports. karma for the update in total needs to come from people in a release-engineering role, rather than people in a bug reporting/fixing/testing role. I agree that people using an update testing repository are reasonable candidates for the release-engineering role, but bug reporting/fixing/testing role doesn't require update testing. The bugs fixes might be tested directly from koji, or from some private builds, or even from local patching. I am trying to be constructive here. We're all busy people. I just think that karma is outside of a reasonable workflow for a bug reporter. The 'karma' relates to the update as a whole, not any specific bug. What we're principally concerned with in the 'updates testing' process is not 'does this update fix the bugs it claims to fix' but 'does this update cause any major functionality regressions'. It's useful to read https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Proven_tester in this context. It is/was intended as instructions for proven testers but it's useful reading for anyone in filing karma. The current system is clearly limited in quite a lot of ways. The single, numeric karma system really isn't sophisticated enough. I've mentioned this several times, and wrote a fairly long post explaining the advantages of a more complex system (and hence, by implication, the drawbacks of the current system) at https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-November/104579.html . Luke has had Bodhi 2.0 in the works for a while, now. A large part of what Bodhi 2.0 will do is what's described in that post - allow for multiple, possibly-dynamically-definable types of feedback on updates, rather than a single 'karma number' for each update. That might be an appropriate time to try and work some kind of connection between Bugzilla and Bodhi. But I still think it might be very difficult to do; it's very difficult to parse a freeform Bugzilla comment and be sure whether it means 'the update's good' or 'the update's bad', and implementing some kind of 'tick here if the update works' box in Bugzilla requires downstream patching of Bugzilla, which we're currently quite heavily opposed to. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: This karma stuff is a pain!
On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 12:15 -0400, John Ellson wrote: On 03/16/2012 05:13 AM, Michael Scherer wrote: Le jeudi 15 mars 2012 à 12:49 -0400, John Ellson a écrit : Can we just generate karma from a comment in bugzilla please? Having to find some other weird place to indicate that a fix works for me is a real pain. Have you tried fedora-easy-karma ? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Easy_Karma This is supposed to be easy? Run fedora-cert, included with fedora-easy-karma as a dependency, to set up a certificate with your FAS credentials. BTW, yes, that is actually very easy. Did you try running it? It doesn't require you to do anything scary. Absolutely no anal probes. We have dozens of people regularly filing karma via f-e-k. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: This karma stuff is a pain!
On 03/16/2012 05:15 PM, John Ellson wrote: On 03/16/2012 05:13 AM, Michael Scherer wrote: Le jeudi 15 mars 2012 à 12:49 -0400, John Ellson a écrit : Can we just generate karma from a comment in bugzilla please? Having to find some other weird place to indicate that a fix works for me is a real pain. Have you tried fedora-easy-karma ? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Easy_Karma This is supposed to be easy? Run fedora-cert, included with fedora-easy-karma as a dependency, to set up a certificate with your FAS credentials. I'm sure karma is useful to Release-Engineering. I just think the scope is wrong for a bug reporter. Take, for example: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/NetworkManager-0.9.3.995-0.6.git20120314.fc17 The update contains fixes for three problems: 800690, 798102, 802540 I contributed to the first bug, 800690, and duly tested and reported works for me, but I had no involvement in the other two, so I'm not in a position to judge their karma. I think these release updates should automatically gain partial, per-bug karma from works for me in the bug reports. karma for the update in total needs to come from people in a release-engineering role, rather than people in a bug reporting/fixing/testing role. I agree that people using an update testing repository are reasonable candidates for the release-engineering role, but bug reporting/fixing/testing role doesn't require update testing. The bugs fixes might be tested directly from koji, or from some private builds, or even from local patching. I am trying to be constructive here. We're all busy people. I just think that karma is outside of a reasonable workflow for a bug reporter. John I agree with you, but we didn't find better way yet. Let's ask Luke if it's even possible. https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/677 Marcela -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: This karma stuff is a pain!
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 09:29:33AM +0100, Emanuel Rietveld wrote: On 03/15/2012 08:24 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: Luke Macken does Bodhi. It certainly sounds non-trivial to me, for a start, Bodhi uses FAS and Bugzilla does not. It would be trivial if these decisions would be made by a human who is CCed on both (i.e. the maintainer of the package) rather than by software. Kevin Kofler Policy always hinders the most talented workers (in this case, the best package maintainers). The purpose of policy is to limit the damage a less experienced package maintainer can do. How do we prevent an inexperienced package maintainer from prematurely pushing updates to stable? How do we prevent inexperienced testers from giving undeserved karma and thus causing an update to be automatically pushed to stable? One has to fulfil certain requirements before one becomes a packager. But anyone with FAS account can give karma to an update... D. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: This karma stuff is a pain!
David Tardon wrote: How do we prevent inexperienced testers from giving undeserved karma and thus causing an update to be automatically pushed to stable? One has to fulfil certain requirements before one becomes a packager. But anyone with FAS account can give karma to an update... +1, the current policy is really flawed, we trust any idiot with a FAS account more than our sponsored packagers (and even our carefully vetted provenpackagers). Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: This karma stuff is a pain!
Adam Williamson wrote: That might be an appropriate time to try and work some kind of connection between Bugzilla and Bodhi. But I still think it might be very difficult to do; it's very difficult to parse a freeform Bugzilla comment That's why it's best to leave this to a human! Software is not the universal solution to every problem in the world. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: This karma stuff is a pain!
On 03/16/2012 10:06 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: David Tardon wrote: How do we prevent inexperienced testers from giving undeserved karma and thus causing an update to be automatically pushed to stable? One has to fulfil certain requirements before one becomes a packager. But anyone with FAS account can give karma to an update... +1, the current policy is really flawed, we trust any idiot with a FAS account more than our sponsored packagers (and even our carefully vetted provenpackagers). Kevin Kofler But this policy also prevents the misuse of power, which is also a good thing I think. And there needs to be more than one idiot to make any changes to the update which is not the case of packagers or even provenpackagers. Which I think is really helpful since in most cases those people are also only humans which could make mistakes. I think this policy helps to prevent updates which break a lot of stuff when pushed to stable, it also provides a nice and quicker way of first contact to check if there are some issues with an update. Johannes -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: This karma stuff is a pain!
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM, John Ellson john.ell...@comcast.net wrote: Can we just generate karma from a comment in bugzilla please? Having to find some other weird place to indicate that a fix works for me is a real pain. Typically the link to the Bodhi update is provided in the BZ. I imagine tighter integration is non-trivial, but I wouldn't be a the one to ask. That would probably be rel-eng, but I'm not positive. -J John -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: This karma stuff is a pain!
On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 12:04 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM, John Ellson john.ell...@comcast.net wrote: Can we just generate karma from a comment in bugzilla please? Having to find some other weird place to indicate that a fix works for me is a real pain. Typically the link to the Bodhi update is provided in the BZ. I imagine tighter integration is non-trivial, but I wouldn't be a the one to ask. That would probably be rel-eng, but I'm not positive. Luke Macken does Bodhi. It certainly sounds non-trivial to me, for a start, Bodhi uses FAS and Bugzilla does not. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: This karma stuff is a pain!
Adam Williamson wrote: Luke Macken does Bodhi. It certainly sounds non-trivial to me, for a start, Bodhi uses FAS and Bugzilla does not. It would be trivial if these decisions would be made by a human who is CCed on both (i.e. the maintainer of the package) rather than by software. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
