>>>>> "MS" == Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> writes: MS> I would prefer if those unnamed people contacted FESCO or MS> fedora-extras-list directly. In case you picked yourself as the MS> spokesman of that group, provide some details, please. Well, I've been on both ends of the process and I think it generally works pretty well, but it could work a little better. Here are a few observations after having submitted a few packages and having reviewed several others. First, the sponsor process hurts a bit; I think we could relax the requirement that the initial sponsor and reviewer be the same person. I just went through a big review for multitail but I think that there was no notation that a sponsor was needed. Under the current rules I shouldn't have done the review, but what does it hurt? And in any case we probably could use more sponsors. One thing that's bothered me is the nonspecificity of the guidelines. Someone noted a blocker on one of my packages, but when asked where the prohibition was in the guidelines the commenter didn't respond. Some people say that my reviews haven't been picky enough, and some have said they're too picky. There's not a lot of consistency. In my own reviews I'm trying to strike a balance. Doing good reviews takes a lot of time and besides lowering standards the only thing we that can be done to help is to provide better and more complete templates and then require adherence to them. - J< MS> perspective (and I admit I've been doing a *lot* less reviews MS> myself compared with fedora.us era), many reviews are still quite MS> difficult and time-consuming. The usual packaging mistakes range MS> from "simply fails to build" to "does not work at run-time" and MS> "does not erase without errors". There are packages which MS> NEEDSWORK, not seldomly due to severe packaging mistakes. There MS> are packages, where the reviewers becomes an instructor (same MS> thing applies to some upstream projects). And there are packages, MS> where the packagers seem to spend less time on packaging and MS> testing than the reviewer(s) do. The recent repo breakage caused MS> by invalid "Provides" plus some bugs in new packages and updates MS> are reason enough not to "lower the hurdle" by altering the review MS> process for new packages. MS> In general, reviews and approvals can be sped up by bringing MS> packages in shape, doing test-builds and reviews and run-time MS> tests and only then declaring a package as "ready". Better check MS> your own package more carefully instead of relying on MS> reviewers. Everybody can help with that in bugzilla. New packagers MS> can demonstrate good packaging practice and that they are aware of MS> things discussed in the packaging guidelines/policies. MS> -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx MS> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list -- Jason L Tibbitts III - tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx - 713/743-3486 - 660PGH - 94 PC800 System Manager: University of Houston Department of Mathematics And with death The knowledge comes It was the life all along We'd been afraid of -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
