2015-01-21 11:49 GMT+01:00 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > Step 6: ... If the proposed package is not reviewed for 2 months, the > package must be reviewed by the submitter, and a git module with the > master branch will be approved. > I share your concern about the pending list but self-review is not acceptable. Just licensing review itself would be a blocker to your proposal. But if we were to have a staging repository as suggested by Josh and Jaroslav, it could be something that we could consider. What saddens me is that we have plenty of packagers and sponsors and only a very small fraction does review. We should find a way to encourage people doing review even *INFORMAL* ones. Good informal reviews is the best way to get sponsored, and helps decreasing the pile (as a sponsor, I approve a positive and good quality informal review by my mentees). Besides, some submitters do not try hard enough to find reviewers: * some reviews do not provide usable links to spec and srpm breaking usage of semi-automated reviewing tool. The more information you give to the reviewer, the more likely it will get reviewed fast. * reviews swapping: 376 pending reviews but how many swapping requests on this list ? * Just go asking your fellow packagers on irc/mail or SIG if there's one. though I keep telling that I'm more than willing to do python reviews (for free, no swapping!), very little people ping me. If everyone does an effort, it will be less of a problem. H. PS: please no badges for reviewing, it would probably help getting more reviewers at the expense of quality. Reviews quality is also another problem. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
