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

Re: Review queue/FESCo after the merge (was: Re: qct review request, no response?)



On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 06:44:56PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> CCing fedora-advisory-board
> 
> Some of them are quite old. And the list of course doesn't include those
> bugs that got closed as the packager lost interest over time.

I am not sure that these numbers make much sense. Because the merge
review are special for a number of reason. Many redhat people were
completly ignorant about guidelines at the beginning of merge reviews
and in my experience their skills and motivation are often below those
of the extras packagers that take similar responsibilities. Also those
redhat people cannot really review packages for those same reasons, and 
I think that it wouldn't be a good idea in many case. Another reason is
that some packages from former core are very complex. So in my opinion 
merge reviews should really be apart. Also this is an historical
accident, merge reviews once done won't need to be redone.

More important is how new packages are being processed. It is possible
that fedora isn't scaling well, the fact that there hasn't been any new
sponsor in months is quite annoying. It also seems to me that the main
reviewers are always the same people and that new reviewers are not
many.

> Why do you think it's bad? Because I more and more often hear in private
> that contributers are unhappy. I also got the impression that people are
> more and more unwilling to participate in discussions and on lists. And
> there are no new leaders emerging in FESCo/packaging-land (the low
> number of people that volunteered during the FESCo election is one
> reasons for this opinion; or look at FPC -- according to the wiki the
> same people since one year; there is also next-to no interest by
> non-committee-members in participating in the meetings).

I am also worried by the fact that the wiki is always lagging behind, 
this is something that should especially be followed by FESCo, even 
though it is a wiki.

But I am not sure that te number of reviews pending is something FESCo
can do a lot about.

--
Pat


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