On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:09:16PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > As has been noted by several people, the current voting method has > some short comings on what should be voted -1, 0, or +1. In order to > help clarify what to vote, and when here are some guidelines that > should be useful. The problem is you're assuming that the Bodhi karma system is the way it should be done. But I think there should be separate buttons for each of the things you have mentioned: > Program (or programs) do not work as expected. > Programs that link or require updated package do not work. > Bugs said to be fixed are not fixed. > Abrt reports a problem. > Installation/removal of RPM reports problems with scriplets, pre, > or post parts. > RPM spec changes have broken fedora guidelines. > Program works as expected > Programs that link or require updated package work as expected. > Abrt does not indicate a problem after using. > Upgrade/installation does not indicate problems with rpm, spec > file, etc. > Bugs known to user or bugs listed in reason for updated have been > tested and fixed (indicate in comments which bugs and test case > used.) I also think that if an update is broken because of the fault of another package (as with ntfs-3g / libguestfs here: [1]), then the right thing to do is to file a bug with the other package. Rich. [1] http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ntfs-3g-2010.3.6-1.fc12 -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora now supports 80 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
