Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"RS" == Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
RS> That just seems like a knee jerk reaction.
Nope. If you want to significantly increase the amount of time
required to do a review, then you'd better get your butt in gear and
start doing some reviews, because we can't keep up as it is. I've done
a lot of reviews, and I do test packages whenever practicable. But I
cannot go replacing chunks of my work systems to do things like test
out alternate sound servers. At some point I have to trust the
packager to concentrate on their end of the deal (being the local
expert on the software and doing the testing) while I stay in my area
of expertise (the packaging guidelines).
I cant see how adding a SHOULD item on the review guidelines to test
functionality would be a bad thing. This has nothing to do with
individual people. To be more specific, the current guideline is:
"- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example."
This can be changed to
"SHOULD: The reviewer should test that all the functionality provided by
the software works as expected. The default configuration should enable
the end user to use the package with atleast the basic functionality
with no or minimum configuration required."
Besides, have you even bothered to check the review ticket on this
package? A lot of effort by many people went into getting that
package into shape. To save you the time:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221
The suggestion was not isolated to specific packages. In a number of
other reviews (I do follow the discussion on a regular basis) , the
reviewers seem hesitant to even point out potential issues with
functionality. We can avoid that by clarifying this a bit I guess.
Rahul
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
