On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 02:02:48PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:54 -0500, Luke Macken wrote:
>
> > Yep, that happens. There are also people that add +0 comments to
> > updates saying "Untested". There is an obvious need for more
> > fine-grained karma types.
>
> I've sent out notes to the test list to ask people not to do either of
> those things in future, I think the occurrence of them has gone down
> significantly since those emails went out. (I also updated the proven
> tester instructions page).
>
> More fine-grained karma is still coming in Bodhi 2.0, right? My
> understanding was that we'd already agreed on the framework for it (in
> those threads on this list a few months back) and we were just waiting
> for the implementation now.

Yes, that's the plan.

I finally got the Bodhi v2.0 plans/ideas/status out of my brain and on to the wiki:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi/2.0

I linked to a couple of pages regarding karma improvements, but please
update it with any more recent discussions regarding this change if you
know of any. Also, more QA feature ideas are welcome.

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

On 12/03/2010 04:09 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> We're working on this. It won't always be practical, however; in the
>> current case, for example, you need specific hardware to test mdadm.
>
> Uh, this is md, not dm, you don't need very special HARDWARE (basically only
> 2 HDDs, which do not even have to be identical, and you might even get away
> with only 1 for testing, with absymal performance of course), you do need a
> special setup though, which means repartitioning, and so isn't practical to
> test on a production machine which isn't already set up that way.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>

For non-boot devices, loopback works. You only need the hardware if you
are testing boot time capabilities (which, admittedly, is the far more
important aspect of testing for this package).

--
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

Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I am concerned about that. If my karma is going to be treated differently
> because I become a proventester, I'd want to know what I am supposed to be
> doing differently and not mark something +1 by mistake. I think this
> concern goes away in the unicorn filled world where bodhi has descriptive
> feedback instead of numerical feedback.

Really DESCRIPTIVE feedback is just incompatible by design with automated
enforcement. We have to go back to where the decision is made by a human
with a brain (the maintainer) to really make use of precise feedback.

Software just cannot grasp these things. Or do you volunteer for writing an
NLP processing system for Bodhi, and training all our testers to deal with
its limitations? Why can't we just let a human be the one to decide when to
hit the "Push to stable" button?

Kevin Kofler

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

On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 00:01 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> Software just cannot grasp these things. Or do you volunteer for writing an
> NLP processing system for Bodhi, and training all our testers to deal with
> its limitations? Why can't we just let a human be the one to decide when to
> hit the "Push to stable" button?

Would you please quit using every vaguely-related post as an excuse to
post the same argument? We know what your position is. You're not
helping any by repeating it over and over.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

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

tis 2010-12-07 klockan 19:20 -0500 skrev Doug Ledford:

> For non-boot devices, loopback works. You only need the hardware if you
> are testing boot time capabilities (which, admittedly, is the far more
> important aspect of testing for this package).

And if you don't have spare systems with more than one drive to play
around with then kvm virtualization comes to the rescue when testing
pretty much any md or dm issue, possibly even including multipath.

Regards
Henrik

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