Re: digikam5 status, reviews need

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Il 07/02/2016 15:10, Rex Dieter ha scritto:
Oh thanks! Seems I failed to see bugzilla mail notices about most of those. yay. -- Rex

As a side note, it must be pointed out that many of those reviews are not following Fedora standards because they are too simplified...

For example I checked the last review of libksane and I found that using fedora-review the check fails because .spec file is for 15.12.1 while .src.rpm file is for 15.12.0...

I know that you (Rex) are a "trusted" packager, but I think that the reviewer (Pierluigi Fiorini) should be teached to follow the right review process and the entire checklist (it seems these are the first packages he reviews). I will add a note to the libksane review to point out this.

Mattia
_______________________________________________
kde mailing list
kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Mail]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Triage]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux