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 reviews. Of those, since 2013-03-24, 8 have
received new comments. The breakdown
- Original Message -
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org 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
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
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
against merge-review just because we got
it 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 reviews? and why people so
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 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?
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 easier tool to check basic sanity of
SPECs...
Jaroslav
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https
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 -- maybe identify
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 Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org 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.
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 occasionally visit
merge-reviews and try to finish them with the help of current package
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org 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
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org 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
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 it.
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.
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 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 merge
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 reviews. Of those, since
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
have an
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:45:40 +0100
Richard Fearn richardfe...@gmail.com 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
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.
Which exact link?
I just made a couple of tweaks to the Join page:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Join_the_package_collection_maintainersdiff=186902oldid=185877
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Join_the_package_collection_maintainersdiff=186903oldid=186902
which makes the two sections
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
guidelines (provenpackagers? sponsors?), if we can prove
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
(but also for new packages).
There must be some group of packagers who we can trust
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 problem with the merge reviews has always been when
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 my comments. For the major
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 URL of that page
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 them glumly? =) If not, then option c) seems
perfectly
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 anyone, and slowly people are doing them, so why not let them
stay
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:19:14 +0200
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 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 they shouldn't
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
has been the lack of maintainer interest
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 see if I can manage to do one a week
myself... if we could get some group of packagers
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 shouldn't have been).
So, what do we do?
Some possible options:
a) Just close them all, any bugs in spec files in those
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 myself
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
did not find someone who is ready, I
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com 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 possible options
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?
Some possible options:
a) Just close
this as anything other
than a transparent frustration at your package not getting reviewed
fast enough for your liking, with an unsaid assertion that it's part of
the 'wheat' above.
Right now, we have a dearth of review resources. This leads to both
merge reviews having no activity, and new package reviews
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 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
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 actual
harm
? 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 them glumly? =) If not, then option
c) seems perfectly fine to me
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 like to compile lists
of open bugs and then stare at them
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:59:44 -0700
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com 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..
42 matches
Mail list logo
