[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: sponsors still needed for new packages, extras not advertised on fedorawebsite?



On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:22:14 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:

> >    Preferably (in my point of view), the approval is posted before or
> >    shortly after the new package is imported into CVS, but must be posted
> >    before a first build is requested.
> 
> Erm, not everybody has an 24hrs online private server or plenty of 
> webspace to drop SRPMS (my isp sucks when it comes to this),

Keep in mind, that a) this is still an interim process until a database
adds useful tracking and b) currently, it makes no sense to import/
upload stuff, which nobody will review and approve. 

Exchanging spec files and relevant details about a new package should
make it possible to get a preliminary "okay" from somebody, who will
post explicit approval later.

An unwanted side-effect of importing unreviewed/unpolished/controversial
src.rpm contents into CVS would be that observers on commits-list raise
questions or even veto something. Hence it would be beneficial if an
approval came early, and that's why I wrote "before or shortly after"
above.

Btw, making a package _build and work_ is your [the packager's]
responsibility, not the reviewer's.  Just as with upgrades, where
nobody looks over your shoulder perhaps, _you_ receive the
regression reports, the build failure logs, or nasty questions by
fellow packagers, who point out packaging pitfalls or other oddities.

> so I would 
> prefer to import a package into CVS as soon as:
> 1) All legal issues or cleared, iow there are no legal issues
>     (remaining)
> 2) There is someone who is willing to take on the role of (primary)
>     reviewer because he agrees the package would make a welcome addition
>     to FE.

That doesn't contract with what I've written earlier.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]