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
reviewer to
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
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
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 the
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 MAINTAINERS in
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 reviewed
- 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 process
- Original Message -
2015-01-21 11:49 GMT+01:00 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos n...@redhat.com:
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
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
PT == Pete Travis li...@petetravis.com 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
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 must
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:15:10AM +0100, Haïkel wrote:
2015-01-21 11:49 GMT+01:00 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos n...@redhat.com:
snip
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
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 interesting
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 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 typical
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 carry
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 reviewed for
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 add
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't work
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 not
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?
In the sense,
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 submitter,
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 encouraged to
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 formal
2015-01-21 11:49 GMT+01:00 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos n...@redhat.com:
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
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 to get your
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, not just
On 01/22/2015 07:15 PM, Haïkel wrote:
2015-01-21 11:49 GMT+01:00 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos n...@redhat.com:
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
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
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 a
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
n...@redhat.com 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
- Original Message -
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
n...@redhat.com 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
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 submitter, and a
33 matches
Mail list logo
