Am Mittwoch, den 28.01.2009, 20:07 -0500 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil: > 2009/1/28 Brian Pepple : > > On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 00:40 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: > >> 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. > > > > He was approved as a provenpackager, not as a sponsor. > > > > I really don't want to point fingers on anyone, but how can someone > who completed only 3 reviews (one of them is what you are talking > about above) become a provenpackager? Because the whole proven packager model is broken. :( Therefor I strongly support Robert Scheck's latest proposal. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/ProvenpackagerProposal > IMHO there is clearly a chain of > people-not-doing-their-job-properly on this. +1 Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
