|
On 01/22/2015 07:15 PM, Haïkel wrote: > 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. I think the last bullet point here is the important part. I understand the disposition for a technical solution, but someone that just drops their package in - even after two months - isn't really getting a sense of community out of the experience. The process as-is, while it can be frustrating for all the reasons described, encourages new contributors to get acquainted with their fellow packagers and their sponsors. I'm not suggesting a de facto "you must be sociable to be a Fedora Packager", but the process does reinforce that you're not alone when you get stuck, and you're not so isolated that nobody cares if you make a mistake. The informal reviews, irc chats, and list mails don't just garner experience; they help develop a sense of participation, and that leads to greater contributor retention. Maybe some list or other communication channel that's more clearly for packaging issues - I'm told devel@ can be intimidating - would help, but I'm not really suggesting anything specific. Everyone in the thread here, and probably far more, have answered inane questions from me at one time or another :P Sometimes more process and more guides can help, and sometimes you just need to bounce your understanding of the subject off someone to clear up misconceptions and gain a little confidence. That part isn't broken, but maybe new packagers don't know it. -- -- Pete PS: Haïkel, if you're passing out python reviews... |
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
