Package Review Stats for the week ending January 18th, 2009

[Kevin Kofler]

Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> Not that it really matters, I'm just being pedantic. ;-)
> 
> Me too, epically on reviews. ;)

I'm also extremely pedantic on reviews. ;-)

>> >> >       * A font package was approved although it contained another
>> >> >       font
>> > 
>> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481501
>> 
>> In this case the reviewer clearly said what needs to be fixed and the
>> version which got imported was fixed, so it wasn't that bad. Maybe it
>> would have made more sense to wait for a fixed version, but are there
>> actually any issues with what was imported?
> 
> None that I know of. The package owner told me a different story on IRC
> and I was under the impression that the reviewer did not spot the
> problem.

The reviewer said:
| You have the wrong source archive and the review link in your wiki page is
| not pointing here.
|
| The rest of the package is perfect and you're an experienced packager so
| I'll approve anyway but do make sure you push the right font in koji.

Maybe the submitter missed that. (That's a drawback of "fix
before/during/after import please", the issues may end up overlooked. On
the other hand it does save a pointless turnaround in many cases.)

> For me it is ok to say "fix this before import", at least if the
> packager is experienced enough.

For me too, as long as it's not "you have the following 10+ serious issues
and I've also been unable to verify 5+ more points because the issues make
the package fail to build, but let's approve it and I'll trust you to fix
everything". ;-) In cases like this I definitely want to see the fixed
package first.

        Kevin Kofler