On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 11:23, Aurelien Bompard wrote: > I have setup a wiki page with a primary format proposal, and I invite you to > have a look at it and comment on it: http://www.fedora.us/wiki/QAFormat Comments on the Review Format: I like lists and more succinct information. So I'd slim the output as much as possible. header: Checked <SRPM> <RESOLUTION> * I would get rid of the first line altogether. Because these reviews are going into bugzilla, the package name is already available. And it doesn't provide any information the build system needs. Alternately, you could make the first line: <HASH> <SRPM> so that it's useful for the build system. (But see my next entry.) Files: <hash> <filename> * I would change Files to MD5sums (or MD5SUMS) because at sometime in the future the build system may support other hash types and it would be good for it to be able to easily tell which is which one this is. * I would specify that the <SRPM> always comes first in the HASH section. This makes it easier for the release managers and the buildsystem to parse the HASH-SRPM pairing from the other files. It could also be separated by a blank line or other visible demarcation. Body: I favor a Good/Blocker/Non-Blocker style with bulletted lists. For your sample, I'd implement this as: Good: * Sources: bash-completion-20040331.tar.bz2 is valid * Sources: bash-completion.profile is not web-accessible * Signature: VALID - bcd241cb * Installs, runs and uninstalls fine on FC1 * Spec file looks good. Needswork: Minor: Notes: [Put here the things you want to add about the package] --TODO-- {Things todo when editing the review} * Regarding the Sources lines: I'd include the full URL for the tarball and say it comes from a canonical source rather than simply "is valid". * http://www.caliban.org/files/bash/bash-completion-20040331.tar.gz is the canonical Source location For the other source line, I'd want something like this: * Sources: bash-completion.profile appears to be correct and proper My reasoning is that I don't care so much about whether I can download the files off the internet (More precisely: I only care if I can't.) I do want to know what works been done verifying the sources (which canonicalness of source tarballs helps for the first one and looking at the file helps for the second.) These could both go in the TODO section rather than the completed review. Anyhow, this looks like it'll be a tremendously helpful tool when it's finished. Good work! -Toshio -- _______S________U________B________L________I________M________E_______ t o s h i o + t i k i - l o u n g e . c o m GA->ME 1999
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
