Package Review Stats for the week ending January 18th, 2009

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Jeu 29 janvier 2009 11:20, Christoph Wickert a écrit :
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 29.01.2009, 11:09 +0100 schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
>>
>> Le Jeu 29 janvier 2009 11:05, Christoph Wickert a écrit :
>> >
>> > Am Donnerstag, den 29.01.2009, 08:26 +0100 schrieb Nicolas
>> Mailhot:
>> >> Le mercredi 28 janvier 2009 à 23:35 +0100, Christoph Wickert a
>> écrit
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> >       * A font package was approved although it contained
>> another
>> >> font
>> >>
>> >> And this was caught in review before the approval and fixed
>> before
>> >> cvs
>> >> import. So go search your quality problems somewhere else.
>> >
>> > Both Sven and me corrected my statement already hours before you
>> wrote
>> > that mail. Please go search the list before posting.
>> >
>> > To clarify: I have no problems with "fix that before import" in
>> > general,
>> > but IMHO for a wrong source it's something different, because a
>> lot of
>> > things can not be checked or the checks are useless.
>>
>> Why do you assume I didn't check the correct source before approval?
>
> You might have checked the source, but how do you compare it's md5 to
> something that's not there? Or how do you compare the timestamp of the
> source in the SRPM, if it's not there?

I actually knew the exact file source Sven would use because he had
packaged a related font from the same upstream two days before. So
please stop using this review as example of whatever you want to prove
and move along.

If you want to do something useful, I have a pile of packaging changes
in my review queue I'd be happy to pass on to someone obcessing about
review quality in Fedora.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot