On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 22:53 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 05:33 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > 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? > > The submission process might not even have to change, it could be as > simple as having a daemon/script/cron tracking new bugzilla review > items, scraping the SRPM path out of it, building it in a plague > instance, running the tool, and returning the tool output (or plague > build failure) as a comment to the new ticket. > > Short answer: Show me the tool. :) Maybe we could look at using or extending Aurélien Bompard's fedora-qa script? http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/fedora-qa /B -- Brian Pepple <bpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
