Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx) said: > Cute re-ordering of events, there. No, after repeated experiences > with seeking reviews, including this most recent one mentioned > elsewhere on this list, and seeing others on this list repeating > review requests, I was inspired to poke around to see why responses > were so uneven. OK. I apologize for the insinuation. > Looking at the process with fresh eyes, starting from > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewProcess and moving to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/ReviewRequests one > sees a chaotic mess of package reviews, both assigned and unassigned, > not really moving forward at all. Looking closely, you see a lot of > packages that seem of worth, but that set is crowded by review > requests for ancient packages like redhat-menus or kernel. I wonder if a better way to sort this is bottom-up... you could argue that the older the review ticket, the 'less important' the package is (as if it was a critical need, it would have been reviewed.) > project. By all appearances, nobody else was bothering with these > things after several years went by. Yes, that's a problem. We've had two sets of issues here: 1) No one does the merge reviews 2) Merge reviews that were done were never applied by the maintainers #2 sort of fed #1. In any case, as trying to be part of the solution, I finished off one merge review last night. I'll see if I can manage to do one a week myself... if we could get some group of packagers (sponsors, maybe?) to do the same, we might cut this down pretty quickly. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
