Request for Review: bioperl and its dependancies

[Hunter Matthews]

On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 06:09, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:08:29 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> > > > 
> > > > * URL
> > > > 
> > > >   If the module is available in CPAN don't use a URL
> > > >   that contains the author id and the module version.
> > > > 
> > > >   Example:
> > > >   Use
> > > >     http://search.cpan.org/dist/Heap/
> > > >   instead of
> > > >     http://search.cpan.org/~jmm/Heap-0.70/
> > > > 
> > > I was using the urls provided when I searched cpan itself. 
> > > 
> > > Is this requirement documented anywhere?
> >
> > I am not aware about such a requirement. But even if, this should be
> > reconsidered.
> 
> There is no such requirement.
> 
> This shows that even without a "QA checklist" different reviewers suggest
> different changes based on personal preference, aesthetics or special
> expertise. And I'm afraid, that won't change ever. Unless we return to
> fedora.us style of marking items as "blockers" and "non-blockers" (or
> "suggestions"/"hints", respectively).
> 
Sigh.

I needed to go through and fix the license tags on all those spec files
(as documented elsewhere) but had this been the only review "suggestion"
i'd be mightly irritated at "fixing" something that wasn't broken.

Can we please slug
"required -violates wiki/foo/blarg#whatever"
"suggested -nicer to QA people"
"personal pref -your typical spec file is crap, and you're stupid"

or something to each recommended change in a review? As a potential new
contributor, see-sawing back and forth between different review
preferences makes me not want to do something else instead.

-- 
Hunter Matthews                          Unix / Network Administrator
Office: BioScience 145/244               Duke Univ. Biology Department
Key: F0F88438 / FFB5 34C0 B350 99A4 BB02  9779 A5DB 8B09 F0F8 8438
Never take candy from strangers. Especially on the internet.