as packaging guidelines. It has never blocked
> anything, it's just a best effort 'we should do this one day'.
>
> Since 1 year ago (2013-03-24), 8 merge reviews have been closed as either
> RAWHIDE, CURRENTRELEASE, or NEXTRELEASE.
>
> There's currently 126 ope
l you about other packages that
might have passed the review 5+ years ago, but since then fallen out
of compliance with the guidelines.
This looks like a general opinion on package reviews and not about
merge-reviews.
Why can't we consider them like as a new reviews? and why people so
aga
doesn't tell you about other packages that
> might have passed the review 5+ years ago, but since then fallen out
> of compliance with the guidelines.
>
This looks like a general opinion on package reviews and not about
merge-reviews.
Why can't we consider them like as a new review
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 08:13:24AM +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
> If those packages are still not following current packaging guidelines
> then they should not be closed otherwise what is the use of FPC and
> their work, meetings, updating wiki pages all these efforts will be of
> no use then for ex
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:07:35PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> Alternative idea -- maybe identify all packages which are not ciritcal and
> >> have an open merge review. Take those packages out of t
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 03/25/2014 08:42 AM, Cole Robinson wrote:
>>
>> On 03/24/2014 08:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
An alternative would be to reassign every open me
On 03/25/2014 08:42 AM, Cole Robinson wrote:
On 03/24/2014 08:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the component
in question, and let maintainers handle it as they like.
Thou
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:29:12AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > I like the idea of actually revisiting the list and deciding what to do,
> > although pulling them out of the repository seems unnecessarily drastic.
> This always winds up being the suggestion. Nobody actually does
> anything about i
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:29:12AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > I like the idea of actually revisiting the list and deciding what to do,
>> > although pulling them out of the repository seems unnecessarily drastic.
>> This always winds up b
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:29:12AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > I like the idea of actually revisiting the list and deciding what to do,
>> > although pulling them out of the repository seems unnecessarily drastic.
>> This always winds up b
guidelines? The only problem I have seen while
working on such reviews is that some maintainers find them low
priority and did not respond. Sometime ago I decided to work on this
and also wanted to clean spec myself and review the same package
myself but our policies does not allow this. So I occ
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:07:35PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Alternative idea -- maybe identify all packages which are not ciritcal and
>> have an open merge review. Take those packages out of the repository.
>> Then revisit the list
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:07:35PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Alternative idea -- maybe identify all packages which are not ciritcal and
> have an open merge review. Take those packages out of the repository.
> Then revisit the list and formulate a plan on what to do with thoes (even if
> the
On 03/24/2014 08:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>>
>> An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the component
>> in question, and let maintainers handle it as they like.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
> Alternative idea -- may
bsolete.
What would actually help making Fedora better would be regular fedora-
review (*) runs - even I'm again a bit sceptical we would be able to go
through it same as for merge reviews. But for more active maintainers
it could help them to make SPECs better.
(*) not full review, much more e
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>>
>> An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the component
>> in question, and let maintainers handle it as they like.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
> Alternative i
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>
> An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the component
> in question, and let maintainers handle it as they like.
>
> Thoughts?
>
Alternative idea -- maybe identify all packages which are not ciritcal and
ha
re it met with the extras packaging guidelines. It has never blocked
anything, it's just a best effort 'we should do this one day'.
Since 1 year ago (2013-03-24), 8 merge reviews have been closed as either
RAWHIDE, CURRENTRELEASE, or NEXTRELEASE.
There's currently 126 open merge
>> I just made a couple of tweaks to the "Join" page:
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Join_the_package_collection_maintainers&diff=186902&oldid=185877
>> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Join_the_package_collection_maintainers&diff=186903&oldid=186902
>>
>> which makes
Hi,
>> One of the links on spot's "Package Review Process" page
>> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process) doesn't work -
>> the Review Tracker equivalent to "Packages Currently Under Review" (it
>> links to REVIEW.html but that doesn't exist).
>
> Odd. it works fine here.
>
> Whic
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:45:40 +0100
Richard Fearn wrote:
> I'm a bit late joining this discussion, but did notice a couple of
> issues relating to review request links.
>
> One of the links on spot's "Package Review Process" page
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process) doesn't w
I'm a bit late joining this discussion, but did notice a couple of
issues relating to review request links.
One of the links on spot's "Package Review Process" page
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process) doesn't work -
the Review Tracker equivalent to "Packages Currently Under Rev
when they touch their package spec files, and they also need
>> to repeat several checks whenever they includes upgrades (e.g. checking
>> for license changes or added code/libs with legal problems).
>
> I think such a process would be generally useful, not just for merge reviews
hecks whenever they includes upgrades (e.g. checking
> for license changes or added code/libs with legal problems).
I think such a process would be generally useful, not just for merge reviews
(but also for new packages).
There must be some group of packagers who we can trust to know the packaging
g
that's a problem. We've had two sets of issues here:
1) No one does the merge reviews
2) Merge reviews that were done were never applied by the maintainers
#2 sort of fed #1.
In any case, as trying to be part of the solution, I finished off one
merge review last night. I'll
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 12:55 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 07/09/2010 03:41 AM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> >
> > I started doing merge reviews in late 2008, so far I've finished 24 of
> > them and have 8 reviews currently still open. The biggest problem so far
> >
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:19:14 +0200
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:28:13 -0600, Kevin wrote:
>
> > So, here we are today with 242 still open merge reviews:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/MERGE.html
> > (Plus a few that were closed when
nobody else was bothering with these
> things after several years went by.
Yeah, I agree that ideally we would be able to re-review existing
packages, but sadly, the manpower is just not there currently.
I don't think triaging merge reviews is a good idea though. They aren't
harming an
t; c) Just leave them open and let people pick pick pick away at them a
>>> few at a time? We might be done by Fedora20. Or perhaps not.
>>>
>> Does the existence of a bunch of open merge reviews cause any actual
>> harm or trouble to anyone besides people who lik
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:28:13 -0600, Kevin wrote:
> So, here we are today with 242 still open merge reviews:
> http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/MERGE.html
> (Plus a few that were closed when they shouldn't have been).
Dumb question first: Where could I have found the UR
On 07/09/2010 03:41 AM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
>
> I started doing merge reviews in late 2008, so far I've finished 24 of
> them and have 8 reviews currently still open. The biggest problem so far
> has been the lack of maintainer interest, often nothing has happened
> after
Fedora20. Or perhaps not.
>
> Does the existence of a bunch of open merge reviews cause any actual
> harm or trouble to anyone besides people who like to compile lists of
> open bugs and then stare at them glumly? =) If not, then option c) seems
> perfectly fine to me.
>
To me the
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:59:44 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Thank the magic of mediawiki!
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/PackageMaintainers/ReviewRequests
>
> seems several important pages do. So perhaps they should be updated to
> use the link below..
2 of them ar
s...
> > >
> > >> c) Just leave them open and let people pick pick pick away at them
> > >> a few at a time? We might be done by Fedora20. Or perhaps not.
> > >
> > > Does the existence of a bunch of open merge reviews cause any actual
> > >
away at them
> >> a few at a time? We might be done by Fedora20. Or perhaps not.
> >
> > Does the existence of a bunch of open merge reviews cause any actual
> > harm or trouble to anyone besides people who like to compile lists
> > of open bugs and then stare at the
.
>
> Does the existence of a bunch of open merge reviews cause any actual
> harm or trouble to anyone besides people who like to compile lists of
> open bugs and then stare at them glumly? =) If not, then option c) seems
> perfectly fine to me.
If you're looking for a
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:28 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings Fedora developers...
> c) Just leave them open and let people pick pick pick away at them a
> few at a time? We might be done by Fedora20. Or perhaps not.
Does the existence of a bunch of open merge reviews cause any ac
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> I'd like not to assume the worst, but given your mass closing of some
> review bugs, plus your arguments here about why, plus your request for
> a review swap earlier, I'm having trouble reading this as anything other
> than a transparent fr
iven your mass closing of some
review bugs, plus your arguments here about why, plus your request for
a review swap earlier, I'm having trouble reading this as anything other
than a transparent frustration at your package not getting reviewed
fast enough for your liking, with an unsaid assertion that
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:28 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, here we are today with 242 still open merge reviews:
> http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/MERGE.html
> (Plus a few that were closed when they shouldn't have been).
>
> So, what do we do?
>
> Som
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, here we are today with 242 still open merge reviews:
> http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/MERGE.html
> (Plus a few that were closed when they shouldn't have been).
>
> So, what do we do?
>
> Some pos
f) Make a concerted push to clear the NEEDSPONSOR blocker. Get all
> > those folks sponsored and ask them all to do a few merge reviews.
>
> I like these the most. A concerted push to clear NEEDSPONSOR would be
> good anyhow. Btw. in case someone is looking to sponsor someone but
&g
ored and ask them all to do a few merge reviews.
I like these the most. A concerted push to clear NEEDSPONSOR would be
good anyhow. Btw. in case someone is looking to sponsor someone but did
not find someone who is ready, I would sponsor this one, if I currently
had more time to re-familiarize mys
tors combined to make this not happen: lack of
reviewers, lack of response from maintainers who feel review is
cosmetic and low priority, etc.
So, here we are today with 242 still open merge reviews:
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/MERGE.html
(Plus a few that were closed when they shou
44 matches
Mail list logo
