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

Re: About missing reviews



On 01.01.2007 20:48, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 12:56:14 +0100
fedora leemhuis info (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
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.
Yeah, I think it would be a wonderfull world if we could re-review
every package on every cycle or something, but thats not gonna
happen. ;)

Well, there is a reason behind the sentence "the oldest packages get visited first" ;-) -- e.g. I suspect we are not able to visit everything during one devel period.

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.
I don't think thats a very good idea personally... If a re-review of a
package shows problems, why not file them as bugs?  The maintainer can
explain why they might not be real bugs, etc.. also as a bonus this
could show a package that could be orphaned due to lack of maintainer
response.

For everything none obvious filing bugs should be mandatory. But is there is still a manual
Requires: python-abi = %(python -c "import sys ; print sys.version[:3]")
somewhere (¹) why not fix it directly in cvs? Bugzilla is IMHO to much overhead for such easy fixes. Hint: But the real solution for those obvious "bugs" is probably to write a check-script that files bugs automatically.

CU
thl

(¹) -- from a extras checkout devel:
$ grep python-abi devel/*/*.spec | wc -l
87


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