FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-02-2010, 08:25 AM
Panu Matilainen
 
Default Bodhi karma feature request

On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> Doug Ledford wrote:
>> Fixes my problem
>> Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
>> problem supposedly fixed by this update just noting that their system
>> still works ok with the update)
>> Doesn't fix my problem (but doesn't necessarily imply it's any worse
>> than before)
>> Causes new problems
>
> Yes, this makes more sense than just +1 and -1.
>
>> (which should, IMO, be an automatic veto of any push to stable, requiring
>> intervention to override)
>
> But no, please no! While it should definitely prevent an automatic push if
> the maintainer enabled that, it should not keep the maintainer from pushing
> anyway.

Well the way I read it, "manually pushing anyway" is the "requiring
intervention" part.

- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-02-2010, 03:31 PM
 
Default Bodhi karma feature request

Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@laiskiainen.org> writes:

> [...]
> Oh yes. Even just a big red REGRESSION button that stops the update from
> automatically entering stable no matter what the karma votes happen to be
> would be a definite improvement. [...]

Just for completeness, please let's be cautious about giving knobs to
anonymous people on the net that can throw a rusty wrench into the
releng works. This could be DoS problem.

- FChE
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-02-2010, 04:11 PM
Doug Ledford
 
Default Bodhi karma feature request

On 03/02/2010 04:25 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Doug Ledford wrote:
>>> Fixes my problem
>>> Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
>>> problem supposedly fixed by this update just noting that their system
>>> still works ok with the update)
>>> Doesn't fix my problem (but doesn't necessarily imply it's any worse
>>> than before)
>>> Causes new problems
>>
>> Yes, this makes more sense than just +1 and -1.
>>
>>> (which should, IMO, be an automatic veto of any push to stable, requiring
>>> intervention to override)
>>
>> But no, please no! While it should definitely prevent an automatic push if
>> the maintainer enabled that, it should not keep the maintainer from pushing
>> anyway.
>
> Well the way I read it, "manually pushing anyway" is the "requiring
> intervention" part.
>
> - Panu -

Yep, pretty much what I had in mind. Disable automatic push, make the
maintainer think really hard about doing the push anyway, and possibly
require that the maintainer enter a reason for ignoring a regression in
order to mark it off before the push is allowed (although this brings up
the anonymous person make a DoS out of this feature action that someone
else mentioned...so maybe make the regression be something only a logged
in person can do, or track source address or some other cookie and only
allow one new regression comment per user or some such, I'm not entirely
sure because the optimum way to do things here depends on internal
workings of bodhi that I'm simply guessing at).

--
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford

Infiniband specific RPMs available at
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:59 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org