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

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

2009/1/28 Brian Pepple :
> On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 00:40 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, den 28.01.2009, 14:48 -0800 schrieb Jesse Keating:
>> > On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 23:35 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> > >  Some examples:
>> > >       * Recently I updated some of the Xfce 4.6 packages. One of them
>> > >         was approved without _any_ docs.
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477732
>> also all the desktop files were installed and listed in %files twice and
>> if the reviewer had tested the package he would have noticed that. Site
>> note: The reviewer has been made a sponsor 2 weeks later.
> He was approved as a provenpackager, not as a sponsor.

I really don't want to point fingers on anyone, but how can someone
who completed only 3 reviews (one of them is what you are talking
about above) become a provenpackager? IMHO there is clearly a chain of
people-not-doing-their-job-properly on this. I did 40+ reviews but I
can't still consider myself good enough to apply for
provenpackagership. I still ask for help at certain occasions. There
are so many bits and pieces in doing reviews that I don't think one
can possibly learn most of them in just 3 reviews.

An explanation would be nice.


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