Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 13:27 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote: > On Sun, 2013-07-14 at 19:47 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > > Huh? The maintainer fixed the description and I just gave it the last > > +1 it needed to autopush stable. This worked exactly like it was > > supposed to. > > It was at -2 to start with. One more negative would've un-pushed a > perfectly good bugfix. :/ Un-pushing is not some kind of nuclear option, it's just a safety valve - it's easy to re-push the update. I'm still not sure what the best way forward is here but I'm no kind of Ultimate Authority here, just a monkey with an opinion... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
On Sun, 2013-07-14 at 19:47 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > Huh? The maintainer fixed the description and I just gave it the last > +1 it needed to autopush stable. This worked exactly like it was > supposed to. It was at -2 to start with. One more negative would've un-pushed a perfectly good bugfix. :/ -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
On Jul 14, 2013 6:21 PM, "Ankur Sinha" wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 11:59 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote: > > Getting back on topic, I propose the wiki page be modified to say that > > karma only depends on whether the package update works or not, > > irrespective of the update description. A 0 karma comment can be > > dropped, but not a -1. > > Another instance: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-11668/dvd > +rw-tools-7.1-13.fc19 > > The update has got -3 karma for descriptions. This will *never* reach > users and fix their bugs in this state! Huh? The maintainer fixed the description and I just gave it the last +1 it needed to autopush stable. This worked exactly like it was supposed to. > Adam, I think this has gone too far now :( > > A clear set of guidelines/policy on update descriptions and whether > karma depends on them needs to be put in place before a war breaks out. So far the only standard being enforced is that the contents of the update description not be "Here is where you give a description of your update." That's not really that unreasonable. -T.C. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
I hope we can have some enhancements in Bodhi 2.0. Such as add a single option for such case. I don't want to be bothered by such nosense karma anymore, too. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 11:59 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote: > Getting back on topic, I propose the wiki page be modified to say that > karma only depends on whether the package update works or not, > irrespective of the update description. A 0 karma comment can be > dropped, but not a -1. Another instance: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-11668/dvd +rw-tools-7.1-13.fc19 The update has got -3 karma for descriptions. This will *never* reach users and fix their bugs in this state! Adam, I think this has gone too far now :( A clear set of guidelines/policy on update descriptions and whether karma depends on them needs to be put in place before a war breaks out. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 00:09 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote: > Well, I hate writing descriptions for new package. > > But this "catanzaro" still gave me -1 to the update. > > You can email me with the issue and I can edit, but -1 is not good. You can edit, and then you'll get the karma back. No need to work around the tool we have with out-of-band email... -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 11:47 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote: > Looks like something similar has already been requested: > > https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/718 Getting back on topic, I propose the wiki page be modified to say that karma only depends on whether the package update works or not, irrespective of the update description. A 0 karma comment can be dropped, but not a -1. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 11:26 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote: > I have no idea how easy or difficult it is to implement this, but I > can > open a ticket with infra and at least get their take on it. Looks like something similar has already been requested: https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/718 -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 14:45 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On 2013-07-04 6:36, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> This is the result of a currently-active thread on devel@:
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-June/184641.html
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/184687.html
>
> Full disclosure: I actually endorsed -1 votes on updates with faulty
> (empty, or placeholder) descriptions in that thread. Now I'm thinking
> that might have been going a bit far, but do bear in mind these
> descriptions are displayed in our update tools, under the assumption
> they'll actually be sane. When they aren't, it does look pretty damn
> unprofessional.
I agree that missing update descriptions looks bad in our update tools
but I still don't think the update merits negative karma. An update
which fixes bugs that it claims to fix should get to stable ASAP. One
negative karma because of a missing description can hold up an update
for hours/days, who knows? It needs to be corrected before the update is
pushed IMO. Here's a brain fart:
Request bodhi upstream to include update "Templates". (For example,
infra has templates in trac).
So, for a new package update, a default "The %{name} package has been
added to the Fedora repositories. Review request: Bug#%{rhbzbug}" will
be present in the text area. The maintainer can choose to enhance the
description or leave it be. (%name and %rhbzbug will be expanded to
their values, of course.)
For a bug fix, we do something similar. A default description on the
lines of "This update to the %{name} package should fix the listed bugs.
Thank you for reporting these bugs." could be in the text area by
default. If the maintainer wishes to enhance it, good, otherwise, at
least a minimum message is available.
(Something similar for bugs that are enhancements can be used)
I have no idea how easy or difficult it is to implement this, but I can
open a ticket with infra and at least get their take on it.
This:
* ensures that a minimum, professional update description is always
present.
* takes some of the load off maintainers who dislike re-documenting what
bugs were fixed.
Comments?
--
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
On 2013-07-04 6:36, Ankur Sinha wrote: Hi, I've run into a few updates that have been given negative karma because they were missing update descriptions. While I understand that maintainers should provide proper update messages, I hardly think an update should be given negative karma for this. This has happened before and iirc, it was decided that Bodhi is not a policy enforcing tool and an update should only be given karma if it does or doesn't fix the bugs it claims to modify. This is the result of a currently-active thread on devel@: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-June/184641.html https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/184687.html Full disclosure: I actually endorsed -1 votes on updates with faulty (empty, or placeholder) descriptions in that thread. Now I'm thinking that might have been going a bit far, but do bear in mind these descriptions are displayed in our update tools, under the assumption they'll actually be sane. When they aren't, it does look pretty damn unprofessional. Can a sentence on this please be added to the feedback guidelines[1] clarifying this? [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Update_feedback_guidelines I'm happy to add a note to that with whatever the consensus of the discussions turns out to be. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 00:09:54 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote: > Well, I hate writing descriptions for new package. Hmmm ... the definition of "new package" is different. It refers to a new package approved during package review. ;-) For an ordinary update you refer to, you should try to sum up the differences compared with the previous release you've made for the same distribution. Mentioning which the "previous release" is can be helpful, too. For example, "update from 0.4 to 0.7", skipping 0.5 and 0.6, and the relevant changes in those versions might be of interest to the user (the RPM %changelog isn't safe when spec files get copied to branches). Does the update only contain fixes added to the Fedora package? Is it a maintenance release with bug-fixes and/or small changes? Is it a minor or major upgrade? > But this "catanzaro" still gave me -1 to the update. A '0' would have been more friendly, IMO. This could be added to the feedback guidelines, but those aren't too popular either. it seems, since some bodhi voters ignore earlier votes. This could become sort of a mess soon. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
>Well, I hate writing descriptions for new package. >But this "catanzaro" still gave me -1 to the update. >You can email me with the issue and I can edit, but -1 is not good. Completely agree >Sure it should, the update is defective. The description isn't optional it should, only when the bug fixed are not described, i think providing the bug # is sufficient and in this case ( https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-12227/youtube-dl-2013.07.02-1.fc19?_csrf_token=250e02ff8797fd26dd3eae7265854ece8c1b1e27) providing -ve karma is so inappropriate > -- Akshay vyas (http://www.gofedora.in) -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
Well, I hate writing descriptions for new package. But this "catanzaro" still gave me -1 to the update. You can email me with the issue and I can edit, but -1 is not good. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
On 4 July 2013 14:36, Ankur Sinha wrote: > I hardly think an update should be given negative karma for this. Sure it should, the update is defective. The description isn't optional. Richard. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 04/07/2013 17:09, Ankur Sinha a écrit : > On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 14:51 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: >> How does a reporter supposed to know which bugs are fixed if >> there is no update description? > > One can specify what bugs an update fixes in Bodhi. These bugs are > closed when the update goes stable, and these bugs are listed both > in bodhi and in fedora-easy-karma. > > All the updates I've seen today that received negative karma for > their descriptions had these bugs specified. I think an update with some bug link(s) really "have" a description. And I also think that an update without description (really no description, or only a short silly message) could receive negative karma. But probably because I always try to give as much as possible information in my updates. Remi. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlHVlOUACgkQYUppBSnxahgYWgCdGgrzupwG/pVI2rPHNLKrzLmw iRAAnRzEbQfKGfjOauV3f37vL/IOhqm6 =jxqw -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 14:51 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > How does a reporter supposed to know which bugs are fixed if there is > no > update description? One can specify what bugs an update fixes in Bodhi. These bugs are closed when the update goes stable, and these bugs are listed both in bodhi and in fedora-easy-karma. All the updates I've seen today that received negative karma for their descriptions had these bugs specified. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Negative karma for missing update descriptions?
On 07/04/2013 01:36 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote: I've run into a few updates that have been given negative karma because they were missing update descriptions. How does a reporter supposed to know which bugs are fixed if there is no update description? JBG -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
