Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:52:22 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:

> Again all or nothing. Just do the checklist in the bugzilla, that does
> not have to be followed up by a book on your methology. You try to
> bundle that in order to try to demonstrate that check lists are bad,
> but the bundling is wrong to start with.

I won't use such checklists anymore. Period.

> > > Thanks for putting efforts into allowing good packages to evolve, but
> > > any custom or packaging habits controlled reviewes need to be on top
> > > of the base checklist.
> > 
> > Another loop.
> 
> Anything that disagrees with your opinion isn't neccessary a loop.

You misunderstand so many things and in return try to use smart
rhetoric. The loop is that we cannot go back to a full [longer] list of
things to check, because as it gets longer, the number of reviewers will
be decreasing. Initially we've had 18 items on the list. Considered too
much. Trimmed it down to 15 items. Still too much. Nowadays we're back to
31 items plus 8x SHOULD. And I need to cut'n'paste that list into bugzilla
to prove what? Nothing. Aha, so you want me to take down detailed notes
about all MUST items plus all the things I perceive while performing my
own checks? That's extra work *I* do not support. If other reviewers are
happy about the bureaucracy, fine. I am not. And this is the feedback.

> > From the right perspective, however, *every* packager ought to check
> > his own package against the reviewing guidelines prior to submitting
> > it for review.
> 
> Indeed, but more to the point, what does that say about reviews? That
> you as a reviewer don't have to check the guidelines anymore?

Uhm, no. It means that also the packager could be required to include the
list of MUST-check items before the reviewer would do an own review.
For what benefit? Packagers are expected to become familiar with the
guidelines anyway for the life-time of their package(s).

> No, because that's exactly why we need the reviewer - to catch any errors
> made by the packager. And the reviewer needs to be an example in not
> being sloppy.

With all due respect, but this is getting ridiculous. We let packagers
work on their packages in CVS without any mandatory reviewing. The same
packagers can review and approve other packagers' packages. You want to
set up an artificial control mechanism in the wrong place.

> > There really is only one way to verify a review, and that is to do
> > an own review of the same package. Do it! Find sloppy reviews, where
> > serious problems have slipped through, and then give reason to put
> > an eye on reviewers.
> 
> I can check a review on its validity only if there is one to start with.

I feel so sleepy...

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines#head-2f03bba0a9f05b2ac0128eb1d70b1e3ce9f9dc40

> > > Reviewers aren't gods, they are on the same level as contributors,
> > > and when we ask contributors to invest time in packaging and
> > > explaining package decisions, we have to ask reviewers to put some
> > > visible efforts into the process, too.
> > 
> > Sigh. A cut'n'pasted list?
> 
> No, a cut'n'pasted *empty* list, that gets properly filled out.

I do not want to mess with such lists. 

I don't know how to document my own judgement in such lists without
losing interest in doing reviews completely.

> On the one hand you want
> us to fully trust reviewers who simply paste in an "APPROVE" stamp and
> go through loops to verify their "APPROVAL", and on the other hand you
> assume malicious cut and paste practices by anyone else.

Not at all. No further comment, since "malicious cut and paste" is nothing
I've referred to.

> > [ms: The rest of the message ignored deliberately. You've overstepped the
> > mark in there. I've done hundreds of gpg signed reviews, plus more in the
> > new system, and surely don't need your judgement about the quality of my
> > reviewing.]
> 
> I didn't imply anything about the quality of your reviewing, but on
> the quality of your reviews, which if - as you yourself say - are
> simple "APPROVED" stamps are no proper reviews at all and are the
> reason for this thread.

I have strong doubts that one of my approvals is the reason for this
thread.