Hi, resetting Karma on a new version leads to one very bad issue, IMHO:
Developers of packages with some Karma will hold back bugfix-updates until the unfixed version has reached extras. This should be avoided. Martin 2009/11/1, Henrik Hedberg <henrik.hedb...@innologies.fi>: > igor.sto...@nokia.com wrote: > >> I think the problem here is that some braindead system has been >> introduced, >> which doesn't account for the actual work being done. > > And what is the biggest mistake here is that the new system has been > put into production before testing it at all. > > Someone just came up with an idea of crowd sourcing the QA and used > random generator to set the parameters. Soon it was in real use before > any experiences of its functionaly had got. > > I would have understood if the parameters had been really low (say, > 1 day and 1 thumbs up) at the beginning, or there would have been a > separate repository (say, extras-selection) to test this new > functionality. The parameters could have been changed according to > success of the system and in parallel with the amount of testers (and > devices available). > > The sad contradiction here is that developers are expected to > produce high quality outcomes and their results are put under QA, put > the maemo.org processes and tools are not! Those should have been > tested, for example, with a smaller group of developers before putting > into production system. > > The maemo-extras testing marathon did amazing job. Thanks to > everybody who participated! However, it cannot be a permanent way to > overcome one of the biggest problems with the new system. > > I am not totally against the new system, and I do recognize the > importance of quality assurance. I just hope that we can learn from the > past and react rapidly. Please, do not refer to the better future and > the possibility to have more users and testers later. Things should work > now! > > Here are my suggestions now: > > 1) Fine tune the parameters: say, 5 days and 5 votes. These can be > changed later when the system is working (has enough testers). > > 2) Change the system so that user packages that are depended by another > user package are promoted automatically when the actual user package is > promoted (like non-user packages are promoted currently). For example, > when an user is testing Mauku, she is implicitely testing also the > microfeed package [1]). > > 3) Find a way to overcome the limitations when an upgraded package is an > important security fix. > > And here are my older suggestions [2], which, I think, are still valid: > > * Negative karma can be given _only_ if it based on the agreed QA > requirements. (Testers are still giving karma based on their subjective > thinking instead of QA requirements.) > > * The package page should have a link to a bug tracker and the link must > be used! (Comments are stored into a wrong place currently. It is double > effort for a developer to track the packages interface in addition to > bugs.maemo.org.) > > * Negative karma can be given _only_ with a link to a bug tracker having > a bug report about the show stopper. It may be either a new bug report > written by the tester or an old open bug report just referred in the > comment. > > * Negative karma is automatically removed when the related bug report is > closed (fixed or other way resolved). (Currently, there is no way to > remove the negative karma (thumbs down) if the bug is fixed. Please, > note that the bug may be in the library code, and the bug in the package > is thus actually fixed when the library is fixed. So, there would not be > any need to update the application package every time.) > > BR, > > Henrik > > P.S. I do not necessarily see that more testers will make things > easier and more workable. The more testers there are, the more > subjective evaluations we will get. If one tester just do not like the > graphics of an application he may give thumbs down, and even four other > testers giving thumbs up are needed to fix that misjudgement. I really > would like to see a discussion about the responsibilities of testers. > Should there be a mechanism to give negative karma to testers who are > not following the QA rules, or even way to ban them? > > [1] http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=362575#post362575 > > [2] > http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/2009-September/020921.html > > -- > Henrik Hedberg - http://www.henrikhedberg.net/ > _______________________________________________ > maemo-developers mailing list > maemo-developers@maemo.org > https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers > _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
