On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 10:01:06PM +0100, Tim Jackson wrote: > Gianluca Sforna wrote: > > >However, he raised another interesting topic, stating that he felt the > >package was "blitz reviewed": so, why don't we add a fixed delay from > >a given point in the review ( for example, from the last update to the > >package, or from putting FE-ACCEPT on it). The blitz-review by itself is not wrong, but the synergy of blitz-review & beta-software & untested software (because only the dependencies made the review and the main application package itself is known to have upstream issues at the current beta version) well that makes is a no-go. After all at the very least the beta dependencies have proved to break the non-beta application package, but at run and build time, so one wanders what good are they at all? > I'm not sure this is a great idea unless $fixed_delay is quite short. It > may add unnecessary/pointless/irritating delays to trivial or > uncontentious packages. > > What might be more useful in terms of soliciting opinion would be some > kind of notification to fedora-extras-list when the package request is > first submitted (but no subsequent Bugzilla noise), to gain a wider > audience and attention to the fact that a particular package is being > proposed. Or maybe a package going beta/pre/anything non-release should require a second reviewer. As well as an already submitted package suddenly going beta should have s/o's blessing - currently if I package foo-1.0 and it passes review I could properly upgrade to foo-2.0-0.bleeding1 on the next day w/o anyone noticing before it's too late. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpSoW7agccqy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
