[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 Donnerstag, den 29.01.2009, 11:40 +0100 schrieb Nicolas Mailhot: 
> 
> Le Jeu 29 janvier 2009 11:20, Christoph Wickert a écrit :
> >
> > Am Donnerstag, den 29.01.2009, 11:09 +0100 schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
> >>
> >> Le Jeu 29 janvier 2009 11:05, Christoph Wickert a écrit :
> >> >
> >> > Am Donnerstag, den 29.01.2009, 08:26 +0100 schrieb Nicolas
> >> Mailhot:
> >> >> Le mercredi 28 janvier 2009 à 23:35 +0100, Christoph Wickert a
> >> écrit
> >> >> :
> >> >>
> >> >> >       * A font package was approved although it contained
> >> another
> >> >> font
> >> >>
> >> >> And this was caught in review before the approval and fixed
> >> before
> >> >> cvs
> >> >> import. So go search your quality problems somewhere else.
> >> >
> >> > Both Sven and me corrected my statement already hours before you
> >> wrote
> >> > that mail. Please go search the list before posting.
> >> >
> >> > To clarify: I have no problems with "fix that before import" in
> >> > general,
> >> > but IMHO for a wrong source it's something different, because a
> >> lot of
> >> > things can not be checked or the checks are useless.
> >>
> >> Why do you assume I didn't check the correct source before approval?
> >
> > You might have checked the source, but how do you compare it's md5 to
> > something that's not there? Or how do you compare the timestamp of the
> > source in the SRPM, if it's not there?
> 
> I actually knew the exact file source Sven would use because he had
> packaged a related font from the same upstream two days before. 

Sorry, but you did not answer my question. How do you compare it to
something that's not there? Ok, you knew the source, but how would you
know if Sven downloads it correctly, preserves the timestamp etc.? The
answer is: you didn't, but you trust Sven.
That's ok for me, at least in case of Sven, but you did not really
follow the review guidelines.

> So
> please stop using this review as example of whatever you want to prove
> and move along.

I recently mailed Spot with a (trivial) correction of the Review
Guidelines and a proposal of more things that should be checked during
review. He told me that Packaging would vote on that in it's next
meeting, but so far I got no response and it's not in the Guidelines
ether. You see: I'm trying to move along, but I can't do more than
making suggestions.

> If you want to do something useful, I have a pile of packaging changes
> in my review queue I'd be happy to pass on to someone obcessing about
> review quality in Fedora.

Then give me some bz # please.

TIA,
Christoph


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