Request for confirmation: Which form is required for a review
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Runge <mrunge@matthias-runge.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> lately, I stumbled upon a review, which I thought, wouldn't suffice.
> It looks like the following
>
> name: ok
> summary: ok
> license: ok
> handling locale files: ok
> rpmlint output: only spelling warning
> Not needed BuildRequires: (names), please remove them in git.
>
> APPROVED.
>
>
> My question is: is this review sufficient, if not, where is it written down,
> that it isn't? I'm especially aiming to the form of this review.
>
> I wasn't able to spot a requirement to write something like approved (or
> something else) on
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
>
> Further more, there isn't anything said about how the reviewer should
> document his work. If we deny the requirement of documenting reviewer's
> operation, then just setting the approved flag conforms with the guidelines;
> This also claims, everything has been checked and is well done.
>
> Am I missing something? Is there any need to clarify our review guidelines?
> Do we need something more documented? Do we trust our reviewers, so there's
> no need of bureaucracy? Why should/must I do more than just setting the flag
> or writing 7 catchwords?
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
02-08-2012, 07:09 PM
Matthias Runge
Request for confirmation: Which form is required for a review
On 08/02/12 20:51, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Bottom line is that it isn't. This turns into a nice argument every few
years.
Thanks for your answers. It reads like there's no review documentation
required. Asking for this leads to endless discussion, and probably to
no result.
In the past when I ran across one of these (i.e. back in the good old
days when I actually read the entire package review mailing list) I'd
double check and I pretty much always found something that was
overlooked. Opening a discussion about how the review was probably
insufficient was usually enough.
In my earlier noted case, I should prove, the reviewer had something
forgotten to check.
To be clear, imho there's no need to take back a granted review, the
packager of the reviewed package knows his job well.
I think, a review generates work to do for the reviewer. Why one
shouldn't see, how much, work or which results were found during this
work. (even if it reads ... ok, ... ok, ... ).
Request for confirmation: Which form is required for a review
