Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459535 Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|gauret@xxxxxxx |fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #19 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-11 08:33:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18) > @Christoph Wickert > You review an old package... No, I haven't really started the review yet. :) I only wanted to show Aurelien that there were some warnings in the package he reviewed and that he did not post them the review. Please stay tuned for a complete review. (In reply to comment #17) > No, it's not required to inspect the source code of a package under review. The guidelines state that all (build)requirements need to be met and this can only be checked by taking a look at the source. Not only for shell scripts, but also for code and for Makefiles. Do you have a better suggestion how to do that? > :) Look, I know you are trying to improve the quality of the packages in > Fedora, and I understand your point of view. However, Fedora, and fedora.us > before it, has already tried this route. And we ended up where we have to > actually cache as static HTML the list of packages awaiting review, because it > is so huge. The list got so long because of the merge reviews and we are caching them now because of the 'review with flags'-thing. Back in the days when we used blocker bugs there it was not necessary to cache the pages. > And after the review, the packager is free to make all the mistakes > he wants... That's what sponsors and cvsextras@fpo are for. People should look over other's commits. I as a sponsor have set up filters and I take a look at every commit of my sponsorees, at least until I trust them enough. > We must not scare packagers away, or bore them to death (this bug > was submitted in august 2008). Agreed, but I think it is very important for new packagers to get detailed reviews in order to learn the packaging guidelines. If they get sloppy reviews, they are going to do sloppy packages. A detailed review can be done within less than an hour, so this can't be the reason for this bug being open so long. > Please finish your review of backup-manager, and reassign the bug to you. Ok, will do. Can you sponsor Guillaume afterwards? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review