On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 08:58:34AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 17:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > So, for my counterproposal: > > I propose that packagers with a sufficient level of trust (packager > > sponsors, provenpackagers, or a new, yet-to-be-defined group (maybe > > packagers with at least N packages)) be allowed to import new packages with > > a self-review. We trust those people for so many things, and we know that > > they understand the packaging guidelines, so why can we not trust them to > > import their own packages without blocking on somebody else? Here are just 2 > > examples of packages that have been sitting in the queue for months and > > would have gone in instantly with my proposed policy: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922781 > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125952 > > The submitter has been a packager sponsor and provenpackager for years (and > > even several of the people he sponsored are now also packager sponsors > > and/or provenpackagers), so why do we need to waste our time reviewing his > > packages when it's clear that he knows what he's doing? > > > This is an interesting idea (and one that could be investigated > irrespective of the original discussion). In the last few years, the > fedora-review project has made the review process significantly easier > for many packages. It covers a lot of the policies that are automatable, > thereby reducing the packager requirements. > > Elsewhere in this thread, it was suggested that we could further improve > the process by taking reviews out of Bugzilla and building a tool > specifically for this purpose. If we built this atop fedora-review, we > could make large parts of the review-submission process automated. > (Automated guideline checks for those things that *can* be automated, > automatically perform koji scratch builds for each architecture, etc.) > > With something like that in place to provide at least a minimal level of > review, we probably *could* give members of the provenpackager and/or > sponsors groups permission to pass a review solely based on those > results (plus a manual checkbox of "this is permissible content"). > > In parallel with another discussion on the list, this could be a really > worthwhile effort for the Google Summer of Code this year. Maybe Michel > Salim (CCed) would be interested in having the fedora-review team mentor > two or three interns to work on a web-app version of fedora-review? While I agree that it makes a nice project for a GSoC, it is my experience that we should not have too many students working on the same project. Most often they will overlap and might even conflict. So having one perhaps two (and that's a grand max imho) students might be interesting indeed. For further reference about this project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ-Hjb1UrXw https://github.com/fedora-infra/fresque Because it's not completely a new idea nor has there been no work started on it :) Pierre
Attachment:
pgp2vkGnmlVHs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
