https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656 --- Comment #41 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I too am very glad Mark and Nathan did all the work for packaging grafana and I too agree this is/was a huge task that deserves a lot of thanks. At this point, only minor points are remaining and are likely not blockers. If you saw my comments as moving the goals, this is definitely a misunderstanding and not my intent. A package review is an iterative work, for both the packager and the reviewer(s). You start with the big items and you refine until only the minor ones are remaining. We are at this stage now. I would have loved to be able to point everything out in one go, but that is simply not something that is possible for a package like grafana :-) About the patches, the unclear name and content are not helping anyone, nor the reviewer, nor the packager, nor upstream. Splitting and renaming the patches is not a lot of work and that needs to be done to upstream the patches, which is mandated both by the packaging guidelines and Fedora's philosophy. The real blocker for approving the package now is finding time to do the formal review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
