I saw this set of comments in a merge review and it struck me as a little off: > 5. There are outstanding bugs for [pkg] please address them. This is not relevant to the packaging review process. I see two problems with the above statements: 1) The reviewer is not specifying a specific problem that they consider a blocker for approval of the package. 2) The packager is not acknowledging that potential problems with the runtime of the package are relevant to the review. Perhaps we need to have some statement of reviewers' and packagers' responsibilities at the top of the Guidelines: "It is the reviewer's responsibility to point out specific problems with a package and a packager's responsibility to deal with those issues. The reviewer and packager work together to determine the severity of the issues (whether they block a package or can be worked on after the package is in the repository.) The Packaging Guidelines are a collection of common issues and the severity that should be placed on them. If a reviewer or packager believe their package reveals a flaw in the Guidelines, examples of how the rule is failing should be brought to the attention of the Packaging Committee so they can consider whether the rule has unanticipated consequences and modify it to better fit all situations." [1]_ Let me know what you think of having such a statement in general and this wording in particular. [1]_: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OverallReviewGoals -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
