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

Re: About missing reviews



Jesse Keating schrieb:
> On Sunday 31 December 2006 18:27, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>> I'm more than happy to re-submit my one package in that list for a new
>> review. I picked it up as an orphaned package.  I also volunteer to
>> feed some of these through a new review process as a co-maintainer or
>> to run reviewers for some of these packages as a priority if its
>> deemed that we need to do that because the previous fedora.us era
>> review timestamp isn't recoverable.  But every effort should be made
>> to recover the review information from fedora.us first.
> Its worth mentioning that fedora.us didn't have the same set of rules we have 
> now, so re-review isn't necessarily a wasted effort.

The rules we used today are also slightly different then they were one,
two or three years ago -- thus your argument holds true for all our
packages, not just those from fedora.us (albeit the rules that were used
might be bit more different). That why I wrote yesterday somewhere else
on this list that we sooner or later might need to re-review each
package in CVS. But I don't think we have the manpower for that (or
let's say: we IMHO have more important things to do ATM), especially
with the "let's review all the core stuff when it gets merged into the
extras framework for F7" on the horizon.

I'd suggest this: for the devel period towards F8 build a "Re-review
SIG" (or let the QA sig handle it) that just goes trough most of/all the
packages in CVS; the oldest packages get visited first. I'd even say
those SIG members should get allowed to fix everything directly in CVS
even if the package is owned by somebody else. That eventually could
speed up the handling of the effort a lot; we just need to make sure the
packager sees what was changed and gets noticed *why* it was changed to
educate them.

CU
thl


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