Re: Bodhi critical path updates policy adjustment
On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 16:10 +0100, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > On 02/02/2012 05:18 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Adam Williamson wrote: > >> We'll keep it around, but I'll update the wiki pages to note that > >> it's kinda 'dormant' for now. I'm hoping that with Bodhi 2.0 > >> we'll be able to re-design the process and utilize proventesters > >> in a better way. > > > > How about just requiring 1 proventester +1 *or* 2 regular +1s > > instead of the current "any 2" or the previous "1+1" rule? A > > proventester should be trusted, so why require a second +1 if the > > first one was from a proventester? > > > +1 > > That does seem like a reasonable way of weighting proventester input, > for now. It's up to FESCo. I don't think they wanted one-person approvals in general, though, whether proventester or 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: Bodhi critical path updates policy adjustment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/02/2012 05:18 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: >> We'll keep it around, but I'll update the wiki pages to note that >> it's kinda 'dormant' for now. I'm hoping that with Bodhi 2.0 >> we'll be able to re-design the process and utilize proventesters >> in a better way. > > How about just requiring 1 proventester +1 *or* 2 regular +1s > instead of the current "any 2" or the previous "1+1" rule? A > proventester should be trusted, so why require a second +1 if the > first one was from a proventester? > +1 That does seem like a reasonable way of weighting proventester input, for now. - -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/ Email: sali...@fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A Jabber: hir...@jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hir...@irc.freenode.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPK/jNAAoJEEr1VKujapN6UkwIAIHjamBteNpkEkioCYvr1jUq VJ55ZkU0DjPb9UspLazJITbbSyPRSaQpG7Lofo2G/oCRIbLWISO7F1s8/gGHg4Zm cnYwP1iA4jlGdcQnQnAh5Eopzmf+JsIlGRirebKOvBGsctRu4SCvbZac0mkLARbK Tiv2FMXeLnliBh+5eA5dhYTIxHVqWqEKJwdvHzcqAuxzRfqfwxW1eyg9Renx9jP/ NOj88sU5Be6tJ6KF6o8HTX/49t+Prcpa8mN1DyUESpR9zbMlNn8k2KvQ6LJkzxaw WlG7qNagr44H8BVMhsaidfXgHj1cppxAA/dKSg6PhyaYzIByylAcJCotiR9inys= =9jLz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Bodhi critical path updates policy adjustment
Adam Williamson wrote: > We'll keep it around, but I'll update the wiki pages to note that it's > kinda 'dormant' for now. I'm hoping that with Bodhi 2.0 we'll be able to > re-design the process and utilize proventesters in a better way. How about just requiring 1 proventester +1 *or* 2 regular +1s instead of the current "any 2" or the previous "1+1" rule? A proventester should be trusted, so why require a second +1 if the first one was from a proventester? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Bodhi critical path updates policy adjustment
On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 02:58 +0100, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > On 02/02/2012 01:19 AM, Luke Macken wrote: > > FESCo recently made an adjustment to the updates policy to no > > longer require proventester karma for a critical path update to be > > deemed as stable. > > > > Critical path updates will now require just one regular +1 karma > > vote during the pre-beta phase and two regular +1 karma votes in > > other phases to be pushed to the stable updates repo. Anonymous > > karma is not taken into account. > > > Is the "proventester" group getting phased out as well? Or will it be > repurposed for something else? We'll keep it around, but I'll update the wiki pages to note that it's kinda 'dormant' for now. I'm hoping that with Bodhi 2.0 we'll be able to re-design the process and utilize proventesters in a better way. -- 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: Bodhi critical path updates policy adjustment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/02/2012 01:19 AM, Luke Macken wrote: > FESCo recently made an adjustment to the updates policy to no > longer require proventester karma for a critical path update to be > deemed as stable. > > Critical path updates will now require just one regular +1 karma > vote during the pre-beta phase and two regular +1 karma votes in > other phases to be pushed to the stable updates repo. Anonymous > karma is not taken into account. > Is the "proventester" group getting phased out as well? Or will it be repurposed for something else? Thanks, - -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/ Email: sali...@fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A Jabber: hir...@jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hir...@irc.freenode.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPKe22AAoJEEr1VKujapN6AUoIAJwrYgEgYnN1RTWkWqhY0vO2 mAK67deCxfURLmAeCiXV5O0MICygmyyg07U5+OP4FhlYVFQqydSdhKk/28vmfGCM aT4wbv1KepOlcSdLnnap2BZ+VVBz7Cr7rxIcXc9PprNSdAisBy90YbfIPuPxPz4W VSu20smNF8KDDnH82RcX/er1OC7zCWqzEw6Ot5BRPAV8MKVSZbb/xPbaehHmAEhJ VggvZgfwGNpYVsMtkHOgBVT1g2oQ5Ua6OmgxTfnmJ2Xkxhei4vXNYWrU/hn2WuH2 bCqjeXCt/YUG2iBpclVdwmcg3oPcN6s4i0jADlmxtFsD7gpNOIBrKTAi5tOW9ck= =tJ9A -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
