On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 05:20 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 18:41 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, den 11.12.2008, 17:52 +0100 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: > > > On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 17:08 +0100, Sven Lankes wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Matej Cepl wrote: > > > > > > > > >> We should try to get the bohdi-karma-mechanism more popular. > > > > > > > > > IMNSHO we should get rid of it -- there is already one very good > > > > > mechanism for registering bugs in the software and it is > > > > > bugzilla. > > > > > > > > Which can cater for negative feedback. I don't think most people would > > > > be too happy with bz-entries created just containing 'works for me'. > > > But this is exactly what is happening. > > > > > > Cf. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475943 > > > for a real world case. > > > > Huh? This does not look like positive feedback to me but like a normal > > bug report. > > Note the "works for me"s: It's the normal way users who report bugs > through bugzilla provide feedback on proposed fixes. So you suggest that automated tools trawl all the BZ comments looking for "works for me" comments? ... and what do people do who are just testing the new package but had no problem with the old one, pick a BZ at random? Open a new "the old one worked for me BZ" which we add to the update just so people can say the new one works. And this is _better_ than the simple karma system? -- James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
