On Monday, 23 February 2015 at 03:27, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 01/23/2015 04:32 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> >>My experience with the new package process is that the review process in
> >>Step 6 doesn't work. For some of my packages it took 3 months for a
> >>revie
On 01/25/2015 08:19 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:32:55AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
My experience with the new package process is that the review process in
Step 6 doesn't work. For some of my packages it took 3 months for a
re
On 01/23/2015 04:32 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
My experience with the new package process is that the review process in
Step 6 doesn't work. For some of my packages it took 3 months for a
reviewer to appear, some others more, some where reviewed faster. My
understandi
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:55:02AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 01/24/2015 07:14 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> This is not entirely true. GCC and related projects apply a pretty
> >> complex peer review process, with defined roles and privileges. (Cf. the
> >> file MAINT
On 01/24/2015 07:14 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> This is not entirely true. GCC and related projects apply a pretty
>> complex peer review process, with defined roles and privileges. (Cf. the
>> file MAINTAINERS in GCC's sourcetree for details).
>>
>> Somewhat over-simplified
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:32:55AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> > My experience with the new package process is that the review process in
> > Step 6 doesn't work. For some of my packages it took 3 months for a
> > reviewer to appear, some others more, some where re
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> This is not entirely true. GCC and related projects apply a pretty
> complex peer review process, with defined roles and privileges. (Cf. the
> file MAINTAINERS in GCC's sourcetree for details).
>
> Somewhat over-simplified the process condenses into "All proposed
> changes
> "PT" == Pete Travis writes:
PT> Maybe some list or other communication channel that's more clearly
PT> for packaging issues - I'm told devel@ can be intimidating - would
PT> help, but I'm not really suggesting anything specific.
Just to be sure, you do know about packag...@lists.fedoraproj
- Original Message -
> I think the last bullet point here is the important part. I understand
> the disposition for a technical solution, but someone that just drops
> their package in - even after two months - isn't really getting a sense
> of community out of the experience. The proces
- Original Message -
> 2015-01-21 11:49 GMT+01:00 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos :
> >
> > Step 6: ... If the proposed package is not reviewed for 2 months, the
> > package must be reviewed by the submitter, and a git module with the
> > master branch will be approved.
> I share your concern about
On 01/24/2015 12:32 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
In many Free Software projects (e.g., GCC, KDE, etc.), the people who are
allowed to approve other people's commits can also approve their own.
This is not entirely true. GCC and related projects apply a pretty
complex peer review process, with defi
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> My experience with the new package process is that the review process in
> Step 6 doesn't work. For some of my packages it took 3 months for a
> reviewer to appear, some others more, some where reviewed faster. My
> understanding is that it depends on how interestin
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:15:10AM +0100, Haïkel wrote:
2015-01-21 11:49 GMT+01:00 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos :
Besides, some submitters do not try hard enough to find reviewers:
* some reviews do not provide usable links to spec and srpm breaking usage of
semi-automated reviewing tool. The mor
On 01/22/2015 07:15 PM, Haïkel wrote:
> 2015-01-21 11:49 GMT+01:00 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos :
>>
>> Step 6: ... If the proposed package is not reviewed for 2 months, the
>> package must be reviewed by the submitter, and a git module with the
>> master branch will be approved.
>>
>
> I share your con
2015-01-21 11:49 GMT+01:00 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos :
>
> Step 6: ... If the proposed package is not reviewed for 2 months, the
> package must be reviewed by the submitter, and a git module with the
> master branch will be approved.
>
I share your concern about the pending list but self-review is n
On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 11:30 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > Penalize in what sense?
> > In the sense, that in addition to packaging something new you have to
> > review something else in order to get your new package in. If reviewing
> > is voluntary it should affect every packager the same, n
> On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 09:57 -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > > That's good for you, but unacceptable to me. That way we penalize people
> > > who add packages.
> > Penalize in what sense?
>
> In the sense, that in addition to packaging something new you have to
> review something else in order t
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:37:22PM +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> > > > And there is nothing wrong with review swaps. You help others,
> > > > they help you.
> > > That's good for you, but unacceptable to me. That way we penalize people
> > > who add packages.
> > Penalize in what sense?
On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 15:08 +0100, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 14:49 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > Unfortunately review swaps don't work for new packagers, before they are
> > sponsored. They are encouraged to do informal reviews, but those reviews
> > don't carry
On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 09:57 -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > That's wishful thinking. I proposed that rule in order to make apparent
> > the fact that there are not enough reviewers and new packages are
> > blocked in the queue. Ignoring the fact isn't going to make it go away.
> True, there are n
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:04:37PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On 22/01/15 15:17, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 03:08:28PM +0100, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 14:49 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >>> Unfortunately review swaps don
On 22/01/15 15:17, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 03:08:28PM +0100, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
>> On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 14:49 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>>> Unfortunately review swaps don't work for new packagers, before they are
>>> sponsored. They are encou
> On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 12:10 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > > I'd like to propose an amendment to allow
> > > bringing packages even if no reviewers are available (the typical case).
> > >
> > > Step 6: ... If the proposed package is not reviewed for 2 months, the
> > > package must be reviewed by
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 03:08:28PM +0100, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 14:49 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > Unfortunately review swaps don't work for new packagers, before they are
> > sponsored. They are encouraged to do informal reviews, but those reviews
> > don't
On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 14:49 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Unfortunately review swaps don't work for new packagers, before they are
> sponsored. They are encouraged to do informal reviews, but those reviews
> don't carry formal weight. I propose to change this, and allow non-sponsored
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:10:19PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 21.1.2015 v 11:49 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos napsal(a):
> > I'd like to propose an amendment to allow
> > bringing packages even if no reviewers are available (the typical case).
> >
> > Step 6: ... If the proposed package is not revie
On 21/01/15 22:15, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On 21/01/15 11:49, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
>
>> I don't have a solution to bring extra resources to reviewing (which
>> will be the ideal), but I'd like to propose an amendment to allow
>> bringing packages even if no reviewers are available (the t
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:16:47PM +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 12:10 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > And there is nothing wrong with review swaps. You help others, they help
> > you.
>
> That's good for you, but unacceptable to me. That way we penalize people
> who
- Original Message -
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 12:10 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >> > I'd like to propose an amendment to allow
> >> > bringing packages even if no reviewers are available (the typical case).
> >> >
> >> >
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 12:10 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> > I'd like to propose an amendment to allow
>> > bringing packages even if no reviewers are available (the typical case).
>> >
>> > Step 6: ... If the proposed package is not
On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 12:10 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > I'd like to propose an amendment to allow
> > bringing packages even if no reviewers are available (the typical case).
> >
> > Step 6: ... If the proposed package is not reviewed for 2 months, the
> > package must be reviewed by the submitte
On 21/01/15 11:49, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> I don't have a solution to bring extra resources to reviewing (which
> will be the ideal), but I'd like to propose an amendment to allow
> bringing packages even if no reviewers are available (the typical case).
>
> Step 6: ... If the proposed p
Dne 21.1.2015 v 11:49 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos napsal(a):
> I'd like to propose an amendment to allow
> bringing packages even if no reviewers are available (the typical case).
>
> Step 6: ... If the proposed package is not reviewed for 2 months, the
> package must be reviewed by the submitter, and
Hi,
I've added few packages last year using the new package process:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors
I'm not sure which fedora body (FPC or FESCO) is responsible for this
document, that's why that mail is sent here. In all cases, I'm
interested on othe
34 matches
Mail list logo
