[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

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> Sure.  That's a problem with the merge review procedure perhaps?  Definitely
> not something to blame the poor RH developer for.  I still have many merge
> reviews unresolved.  Am I blocking them?  Hell no.  Go ahead and complete
> them.  I'll give you full maintainership if you need.  As I said a couple
> months ago, just because I work for Red Hat doesn't mean Fedora procedures get
> to decide what I work on.

You are not blocking them, if you do nothing. But you would block them, if
you would refuse suggestions or pointings to the Guidelines. There were
(are?) reviews, where a patch and/or a full formal review has been done,
but the maintainer never has shown up or just told "no, I won't do that, I
am upstream". That is blocking and/or refusing. I mentioned examples for
exactly such cases in my previous e-mails and Paul is also aware of them
(at least he was, when I told him that 6 months ago).

I know, that I can't expect, that package maintainers of Merge Reviews are
asking to get reviewed, but blocking/refusing it never should happen. Okay,
I've one single lonely Red Hat guy on my todo list, asking by himself to
get his packages reviewed and done. But that was the single exception I've
seen until now (a very positive one).

I'm still very happy, if a maintainer of a package being in Merge Review is
performing the suggested changes, maybe discussing or coming up with ideas.
And as Merge Reviews are mostly Red Hat-related (by history), we're blaming
usually Red Hat people, yes. Shall we blame Fedora people instead? ;-)


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