2008/3/30, Andrew Farris <lordmorgul@xxxxxxxxx>:
It seems a little like requiring a higher threshhold for saying something bad about Fedora than saying something good which certainly is not a desirable signal to send.
Also remember an anon negative vote can be -1 (Also affected by about mentioned problem), thus no need for a bz entry but it does give us valuable information in that it is not a single user experiencing this problem - for the kernel e.g. this might be affects multiple archs, multiple configurations of hardware, information the anon user might be encouraged to add to the bugzilla report.
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Josh Boyer <jwboyer <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> I have another proposal I'm in the middle of writing for how to deal
>> with negative karma votes. It's essentially "negative karma votes
>> require a bugzilla entry".
>
> That's a bad idea, the reason for a negative karma vote is not always a bug,
> for example, packages can be -1ed for reasons like "this shouldn't go out
> before package Y goes out, please either add Y to this update or hold it until
> the Y update gets pushed".
Wouldn't those be logged in users though (or at least.. should be). Maybe only
anon negative karma votes should need a bz entry with them?
It seems a little like requiring a higher threshhold for saying something bad about Fedora than saying something good which certainly is not a desirable signal to send.
Also remember an anon negative vote can be -1 (Also affected by about mentioned problem), thus no need for a bz entry but it does give us valuable information in that it is not a single user experiencing this problem - for the kernel e.g. this might be affects multiple archs, multiple configurations of hardware, information the anon user might be encouraged to add to the bugzilla report.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
