Am Mittwoch, den 28.01.2009, 14:48 -0800 schrieb Jesse Keating: > On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 23:35 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > Some examples: > > * Recently I updated some of the Xfce 4.6 packages. One of them > > was approved without _any_ docs. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477732 also all the desktop files were installed and listed in %files twice and if the reviewer had tested the package he would have noticed that. Site note: The reviewer has been made a sponsor 2 weeks later. > > * A package was approved with more then 19 missing deps on > > binaries. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459535 > > * A font package was approved although it contained another font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481501 > > I'm not giving the bz # now because I don't want to point fingers. If > > you are interested, contact me off-list. > > I am interested, as it means we have reviewers who need to be re-taught > how to review. Their sponsors should be made aware of this too. Do RH employes have sponsors too? A lot of the bad reviews are done by RH people and a lot of bad specs come from RH folks. Somebody pointed me to: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433678 and I had a quick glance over it before Andreas added his comments: * no list of tests that have been run * SourceURL is missing * I can't even find the source because URL is wrong * without the source you cannot check the License tag, md5, etc * docs not marked %doc * ... (I'm sure Andreas will spot some more issures) > We > shouldn't be afraid to call out questionable behavior, this is open > source after all, and peer review is key. Ok, here you are. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
