Warren Togami wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:02:10 +0000
jamatos@xxxxxxxx (José Matos) wrote:
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 10:47:44 pm Jesse Keating wrote:
I'd prefer the fedora-review- flag to be used in place of
FE-DEADREVIEW (#201449), or some similar purpose.
+1
+1
I'll throw in another +1... this was my suggestion from one of the
previous versions as well. I don't think changing the flag on most
every comment has any advantage, and is likely to be forgotten by the
submitter, since they are less likely to know the procedure.
So you want:
1) FE-REVIEW to completely be equivalent to the meaning of fedora-review?
2) fedora-review- to mean, "Absolutely no, and you can't fix this to
make it a yes." ?
Possible reasons for denied fedora-review flag:
- The package is unacceptable and the submitter is unwilling to fix it.
- The package contains something that is forbidden.
Yes exactly, except that there will ofcourse an exception or 2 to the
absolutely no, like upstream changing the license into something
suitable, but that can easily be handled by replacing the fedora-review-
with fedora-review? again. Think of fedora-review- as FE_DEADREVIEW
I'm tired of working on the pig. If people are happy with this, let's
just use it until we can get rid of this process. I hope FESCO can
ratify *something* this week Thursday.
(Speaking for myself) I think we are all tired and you did a great job!
Except for the mandatory toggling between fedora-review- and fedora-review?
Actually the last few weeks I've actually submitted a couple of new
packages and these were reviewed using the new process without the
toggling and it works like a charm.
Regards,
Hans
--
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
