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=598553 Chris Weyl <cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Chris Weyl <cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-02 01:59:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > You can view on it from all three points. However I have never submit a review > request nor written a spec file from scratch. I will do that when I have sparse > time. I'm not the only one who maintains perl packages in Fedora. So maybe > somebody could be faster then me. Actually I use the Bugzilla for the right > thing: to track distribution issues, don't I? Yep -- and here's the workflow commonly used :) When we know there's an issue/upgrade needing attention, the tracking bug should be filed against the component itself. Any package reviews that need to be done should be filed separately, and set to block the tracking bug. Soo, in this case, this bug (tracking) should be filed against perl-Padre; the review bug for perl-PPIx-Regexp should be set to block this bug once it has been created (no matter who creates it). This helps provide a distinction between the two issues here: one, that perl-Padre cannot be updated until perl-PPIx-Regexp is in Fedora; and two, the actual review process itself. -- 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