On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 12:56:14 +0100 fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > The rules we used today are also slightly different then they were > one, two or three years ago -- thus your argument holds true for all > our packages, not just those from fedora.us (albeit the rules that > were used might be bit more different). That why I wrote yesterday > somewhere else on this list that we sooner or later might need to > re-review each package in CVS. But I don't think we have the manpower > for that (or let's say: we IMHO have more important things to do > ATM), especially with the "let's review all the core stuff when it > gets merged into the extras framework for F7" on the horizon. Yeah, I think it would be a wonderfull world if we could re-review every package on every cycle or something, but thats not gonna happen. ;) > I'd suggest this: for the devel period towards F8 build a "Re-review > SIG" (or let the QA sig handle it) that just goes trough most of/all > the packages in CVS; the oldest packages get visited first. Can (or will) the new shiny package database contain a 'last reviewed' field? We could sort on that and go thru the list from oldest to newest. > I'd even > say those SIG members should get allowed to fix everything directly > in CVS even if the package is owned by somebody else. That eventually > could speed up the handling of the effort a lot; we just need to make > sure the packager sees what was changed and gets noticed *why* it was > changed to educate them. I don't think thats a very good idea personally... If a re-review of a package shows problems, why not file them as bugs? The maintainer can explain why they might not be real bugs, etc.. also as a bonus this could show a package that could be orphaned due to lack of maintainer response. > CU > thl kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
