On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> 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 v
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.
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:09 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
>> So for most users, when updating to updates-testing (or something
>> straight from bodhi/koji that has not been put in updates-testing) a 0
>> is the most likely response t
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:09 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> So for most users, when updating to updates-testing (or something
> straight from bodhi/koji that has not been put in updates-testing) a 0
> is the most likely response that should be given. A +1 should only be
> given in cases where
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.
Vote Non-exhaustive Reasons for vote
===
