exclude people from giving karma?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 10.03.2014 20:40, schrieb drago01:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>>
>> Am 10.03.2014 20:18, schrieb drago01:
>>> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-1.fc20?_csrf_token=a6a024f6e2d35ad3f3333b8666c1244e215a6aa2
>>>>
>>>> how can people pretend "installation went smoothly, no issue detected during basic
>>>> document manipulation" for packages which are not installable at all due
>>>> dependencie problems?
>>>
>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mesa-10.0.3-1.20140206.fc20
>>> ... again broken dep and someone gave it +1 regardless.  You should
>>> know that "someone" very well ;)
>>>
>>> Now seriously auto qa detected the broken dep. Maybe it should give
>>> negative karma even if there are false positives a wrong negative
>>> karma is not the end of the world ...
>>
>> yes i know that one well, that's why that one notified
>> here that rebuilds are needed
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066718
> 
> OK, but then you should undo your +1 by adding a -1 (which means 0
> instead of +1)

maybe, the main difference is that i installed the packages, tried all sorts
of graphical applications, KDE desktop effetcs and gave karma with
"fedora-easy-karma" and that is a total different story than "uhm that
is broken and i need to seek a completly different build"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 246 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140310/5c5a10da/attachment.sig>