[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



Am Mittwoch, den 28.01.2009, 20:07 -0500 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil:
> 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? 

Because the whole proven packager model is broken. :(
Therefor I strongly support Robert Scheck's latest proposal.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/ProvenpackagerProposal

> IMHO there is clearly a chain of
> people-not-doing-their-job-properly on this.

+1

Regards,
Christoph


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