Request for confirmation: Which form is required for a review
 

>>>>> "MR" == Matthias Runge <mrunge@matthias-runge.de> writes:

MR> My question is: is this review sufficient, if not, where is it
MR> written down, that it isn't? I'm especially aiming to the form of
MR> this review.

Bottom line is that it isn't. This turns into a nice argument every few
years.

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.

- J<
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Request for confirmation: Which form is required for a review
 

>>>>> "MR" == Matthias Runge <mrunge@matthias-runge.de> writes:

MR> To be clear, imho there's no need to take back a granted review, the
MR> packager of the reviewed package knows his job well.

Again in the good old days, I was also processing most of the SCM
requests, so I'd effectively stop the process until the review was
re-done. Occasionally this meant that I did my own review.

MR> I think, a review generates work to do for the reviewer.

Well, theoretically it does. We have nothing to prevent someone from
just setting the flag without actually doing any review work at all.
Hopefully such stuff would be caught at some point, but really unless
someone is actually looking over all of the tickets this doesn't
happen. At best someone will notice that a package is in pretty poor
shape, look up the review ticket and notice that it wasn't done well.
But who has time for that? There are 350+ packages in the review
queue. Still.

- J<
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging