Pulse audio?

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "RS" == Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> writes:
> 
> RS> That just seems like a knee jerk reaction.
> 
> Nope.  If you want to significantly increase the amount of time
> required to do a review, then you'd better get your butt in gear and
> start doing some reviews, because we can't keep up as it is.  I've done
> a lot of reviews, and I do test packages whenever practicable.  But I
> cannot go replacing chunks of my work systems to do things like test
> out alternate sound servers.  At some point I have to trust the
> packager to concentrate on their end of the deal (being the local
> expert on the software and doing the testing) while I stay in my area
> of expertise (the packaging guidelines).

I cant see how adding a SHOULD item on the review guidelines to test 
functionality would be a bad thing. This has nothing to do with 
individual people. To be more specific, the current guideline is:

"- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as 
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example."

This can be changed to

"SHOULD: The reviewer should test that all the functionality provided by 
the software works as expected. The default configuration should enable 
the end user to use the package with atleast the basic functionality 
with no or minimum configuration required."

> Besides, have you even bothered to check the review ticket on this
> package?  A lot of effort by many people went into getting that
> package into shape.  To save you the time:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221

The suggestion was not isolated to specific packages. In a number of 
other reviews (I do follow the discussion on a regular basis) , the 
reviewers seem hesitant to even point out potential issues with 
functionality. We can avoid that by clarifying this a bit I guess.

Rahul