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=529496 --- Comment #14 from Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-11 15:01:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) > I have no interest in argueing. I also don't want to appear as a commander who > orders you to do something. Yet your replies make this bugzilla ticket more > tiresome than necessary. As such I won't be the one to approve your account. > There are others who may do so. > > If most of your answers to requests/recommendations are of the types "I refuse > to do this" and "I want to retain the freedom to not that", this causes > unnecessary trouble. I don't want to put my hands into the fire for such > people. Is there a policy against thinking? I haven't refused to do anything, I've just asked a question: Why? If that's too tiresome for you, I'm sure you can find more edifying experiences with people that don't ask questions and just do as you say. > > I don't see anything on the license that *requires* to add > > copyright/license disclaimers to each file. It says it's > > *desirable*, but ultimately an "upstream" choice. > > So what? It's a HOWTO: "How to apply these terms to your program?" I consider > it good practise to actually apply the licence terms like that. Hence I told > you about it, since you did not even include the license text. All that > mattered to me at that point of the review was your comment on that hint, not > immediate action. Consider it an attitude-check. There's a difference between a *requirement* and a *recommendation*. It is perfectly OK for me not to follow a *recommendation*, and you should not punish me for having a different opinion. > > You can find many source files in the linux kernel that don't have such > > notices. > > And that doesn't change anything. You can find many packages, which are bad > examples. If we had based early Fedora on bad/poor examples, it would have > failed. *You* think it's a bad example, *I* think it's a good example. Fedora doesn't have a policy on this, and GNU says it's OK. If you want to push for your preference, this bug is not the right place to do that, but some Fedora guideline. > [compiler warnings] > > > It's a bit difficult to spot them with so much noise. > > Redirect stderr. Or use grep. Even better would be to reduce the noise in the first place. > [rpmlint] > > > I followed the "Package Review Process" and I don't see this in any > > of the steps for my role of "Contributor". > > It's related to getting sponsored and being a packager, who knows the > guidelines: I'm sorry, my intention here is to get my package accepted (contribute). Later I might apply to actually be a packager if that's not too much trouble. In any case, I was under the impression that the *first step* was to submit a package. Reviewing comes later. > Why would you ignore rpmlint output without a brief comment on it? A short > comment would have been a change to show that you know your stuff. It's a *warning*. I thought commenting on unimportant stuff would be detrimental. If it was really important it wouldn't be a warning, but an error. That of course depends on the definition of "warning", but I'm not a mind-reader. > > If you want people to post rpmlint output on the first run, > > then the review process document must be updated. > > So, you want to _be forced_ to run helpful tools? And you would only take a > look at compiler output if you were forced to do that? *first run* <- see this? On the first try people are bound to follow the instructions, and that's *exactly* what I did. Now, let's be productive and focus on *this bug* which is about reviewing the libmtag package. All the requirements have been met, haven't they? If not, what's missing? -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review