Hi, I think large parts of the review process could be automated or at the very least aided, so that reviewers have less trivial stuff to check and can be reviewing more effectively. In order to allow any kind of automation, the submission process would have to change, e.g. instead of posting a URL a packager would submit the whole src.rpm to some submission mechanism. There the system could test whether the package builds on all non-excluded platforms and on the supported distribution releases (development and any more the submitter choses to add). The system would furthermore be able to run rpmlint and other rpm checking tools on the generated packages and prepare a submission web page for the packager (for example if rpmlint output is not silent the packager would have to comment on it, or if a static lib is found the same and so on). The result would be cast into bugzilla. That would catch most of the trivial packaging issues especially ones made by newbies before any reviewer needs to spend time on it. Perhaps the review process itself could use a helper that for example offers the proper remaining checklists for the package in question. Since the helper has access to the package it would know which items of the review are irrelevant and hide them from the reviewer (e.g. if the package has no python bits mask away python related checks). This part would be optional, e.g. reviewers are free to use the usuall methods of checking a package or could opt to using the helper. Would something like that make sense? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpZoysVwUbm7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
