[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



>> No one is really doubting that. But, it's all about *documenting* what
>> you did (and what you didn't) in the review. That's the most important
>> reason for the existence of a a review ticket at all.
>
> The most important reason for the existence of a a review ticket is to
> make sure someone in a trusted group did review a package. If there is
> any doubt about the quality of one review the checks should start from
> the package that was effectively imported in rawhide, ***NOT*** what
> the reviewer declared checking in the review ticket.
>
> In case of doubt the information in the review ticket is just as
> likely to be flawed as the package itself, and in the end the package
> we ship is the only thing that really matters.
>
> Long check-list cut and pastes where some tests are erroneously pasted
> from another review with this other review value are not unknown of.

>From the POV of a inexperienced packager, having this long list of
checked items with remarks on the ones that don't pass is a great
help.

In fact, I learned much more on packaging during the review of my
packages than when I created them. That's because when you're new, it
can be really hard to understand what those items mean. But when the
reviewer says:
- this item:
  => FAIL because blahblahblah

Then you think "oh, that's what this was supposed to mean ?".

I'm not sure I made myself clear, but I do think that detailed reviews
are necessary. This has nothing to do with the trust we have in
packagers / sponsors, but with the submitter's trainship.

Regards,


----------

Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)
French Fedora Ambassador

----------
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin


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