I simply don't like this idea, there is enough bugzilla noise and enough bureaucracy (read: obstacles) for anyone wanting to contribute (yes, even just clicking +1/-1 karma is a valuable contribution ...)
- is this opinion worth 0.02€? :-)
btw, reading the subject line, at first I understood it in a way that a negative karma comment will be mirrored into bugzilla comment of the appropriate bug _if it exists_
that would be good, IMO
note that *I* do updates based on - fixing actual bugs - "fixing" bugs reported by updates monitoring so at least one bug exists for each update
this may vary for different packages & contributors ...
K.
Dne St 27. června 2012 15:54:18, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson napsal(a):
Just bringing this topic to the appropriate mailing list
On the last kernel meeting [1] it was suggested negative karma points should be linked to a reported bug which kinda makes sense if you think about it.
What that means is that you ( as in reporter ) will no longer be able to provide negative karma without linking it to an already existing bug report either created by your or someone else if that came to be.
Now this has been discussed and rejected before by Fesco here [2].
From my point of view FESCO should not be sticking their nose in this topic since I think it's up to ourselves ( the QA community ) to decide whether we want to implement this or not hence I posted this here to this list for further discussion.
I myself give +1 to implement this since give negative feedback without linking to an already existing bug report helps no one.
There was also mentioned on the meeting that reporters seem to be giving negative karma for bugs that never where mentioned getting fixed in the updates.
Doing this is a big NO NO since this will lead to fixes for bugs that got mentioned being fixed in the update not reaching our end user base because of that negative karma so I'm gonna ask reporters that did that to stop doing that.
Thanks JBG
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kernel/2012-June/0038 86.html 2. http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fesco/fesco.2010-09-07-1 9.30.log.html