RFC: Bodhi voting method.

[Richard W.M. Jones]

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