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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] package review template



On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 03:11:56PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> 
> I think you're looking at this from the wrong point of view. The current
> packaging review guidelines are really huge, and take a long time to
> wade though. Some of them really can be just reduced to bullet point
> checklist items, while others need intelligent thought on the part of
> the reviewer. 

I can't see the point. And you are forgetting everything that is not in
the guidelines and is still important.

> By providing a base template for package review, you make it easier to
> check off the really simple items, allowing more time to be focused on
> the ones without simple yes/no answers. 

But simple items are always simple to check off, template or not. And
simple items that are simple for all packages aren't really existing.
Simple items that allow for automation are already automated (in
rpmlint).

> If you want more in depth 
> reviews you have to make the process more time efficient, otherwise people
> will inevitably just look at the superficial yes/no parts of the review.

I completly disagree. More in depth review is achieved if the review
looks after quality and not time.

Time efficiency is achieved by automation, when possible, and also
reducing the amount of guidelines, not by using templates.
 
> Refusing to take the tedium out of the review process by not providing
> the base review templates, is just counter-productive because as the 
> initial poster pointed out, people just create their own templates which
> may or not not actually match current guidelines. We should embrace the

It is not what the initial poster says. He, like other seasonned
packagers has digested the guidelines and found the point that are the
most problematic in his view.

> the defacto standard practice by providing official review templates so
> we can ensure they're always update, and provide incentives to get more
> indepth reviews from people.

I don't think it will provide more incentives to do in-depth reviews. I
honestly don't know what could achieve that, though. And maybe I am
completly wrong and quick and dirty reviews are better than in-depth but
costly ones.

--
Pat


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