Christoph Wickert wrote: >> Not that it really matters, I'm just being pedantic. ;-) > > Me too, epically on reviews. ;) I'm also extremely pedantic on reviews. ;-) >> >> > * A font package was approved although it contained another >> >> > font >> > >> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481501 >> >> In this case the reviewer clearly said what needs to be fixed and the >> version which got imported was fixed, so it wasn't that bad. Maybe it >> would have made more sense to wait for a fixed version, but are there >> actually any issues with what was imported? > > None that I know of. The package owner told me a different story on IRC > and I was under the impression that the reviewer did not spot the > problem. The reviewer said: | You have the wrong source archive and the review link in your wiki page is | not pointing here. | | The rest of the package is perfect and you're an experienced packager so | I'll approve anyway but do make sure you push the right font in koji. Maybe the submitter missed that. (That's a drawback of "fix before/during/after import please", the issues may end up overlooked. On the other hand it does save a pointless turnaround in many cases.) > For me it is ok to say "fix this before import", at least if the > packager is experienced enough. For me too, as long as it's not "you have the following 10+ serious issues and I've also been unable to verify 5+ more points because the issues make the package fail to build, but let's approve it and I'll trust you to fix everything". ;-) In cases like this I definitely want to see the fixed package first. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
