On 08/07/2009 04:19 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Ralf Corsepius<rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 08/06/2009 09:12 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Do you expect people to continue a review even when you'd have to
decide against the best of your knowledge and conciousness?
Actually, yes, I do. Your job is not to make packages perfect, but to
check they follow Packaging Guidelines and other items as stated on the
wiki. Of course, you can and you should express your opinion about any
strategies and techniques they use (rerun autoconf or patch ./configure
or libtool), but their disagreement with your opinion (and it is nothing
else than one of two opinions on the matter) shouldn't be the reason why
you reject the review approval.
I usually pronounce my opinion and then abstain from approving a package.
Do you go to the source code and check how well the upstream made the
program?
I do when I am observing "something noteworthy".
If things are too ugly I usually abstain from "formally reviewing
packages", "approving a package" and/or recommend other reviewers to do
the same.
IMHO, the proper way is to express opinion, and even when disagreement
happens, approve review
== "switch off your brains, morals, knowledge"
Pardon, but you don't want how disgusting I find this logic of yours.
and then file a bug against the package where
you can fight your battle without threatening packager to disallow him
to have a bug in the repo.
My strategy is not to "formally review" a package I don't agree with for
whatever reasons.
Sometimes these reasons are of technical nature (e.g. low coding
quality), lack of maintainer skills (e.g. running the autotools),
sometimes of moral nature (e.g. war games), some times of legal reasons
(e.g. games) ...
Ralf
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
