On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:47:04 -0500, Paul wrote: > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 05:33:43PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:09:56 -0500, Paul wrote: > > > > > I'd like to arrange for some sort of reward for the top 10 reviewers. > > > We could turn that into an annual event. > > > > What are your plans on avoiding "quantity instead of quality" effects? > > How does the packaging community currently ensure that packages > reviewed are of sufficient quality? Are you aware of any efforts to do re-reviews? ;) I'm not. With the current system, a single reviewer is enough to approve a package. That's all. One could argue that the packager (who submits the review request) is a second reviewer, but often (at least that is my experience) this is not the case. And afterall, once a package is approved, the packager can modify it and even violate the review guidelines as long as nobody notices it. It happens regularly. We've even had duplicate packages in the collection (using different names). Once packaging bugs are found, hardly anyone looks up old review tickets to (1) find out whether an issue was missed during review and to (2) inform the reviewer about an issue. Twenty reviews of small packages, which are trivial to review (or even flawless to begin with because the packager is experienced!), or reviews of package rename requests, may be less of an achievement than one review of a big beast with dependencies, which has been waiting in the review queue for many months and needed lots of work. -- Disclaimer: Comments in my messages in this thread don't refer to any particular person listed in the "Package Review Stats for 2008". -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
