On 11/05/2013 12:11 PM, Don Zickus wrote:
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:00:15AM -0200, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
> On 11/05/2013 12:00 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> On 11/05/2013 07:51 AM, Don Zickus wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 01:33:33PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>>> Ping :)
>>>> Even a cursory blog post somewhere (or a reply to this email!)
>>>> explaining to people how to *experiment* with this would be helpful. At
>>>> the moment I'm having to point people at the merged pull request to
>>>> "Yes, in theory, you can use the upcoming version of autotest as a
>>>> Beaker test harness", but I have zero resources to give them on how
>>>> actually run it (because I don't actually know myself).
>>> So playing with things a little more..
>>>> 1. How do you get the experimental version of autotest to play with? Is
>>>> there a pre-built RPM somewhere that people can use, or do they have to
>>>> build their own?
>>> Unfortunately, I see autotest-0.15 has not been packaged with Fedora 20
>>> for some reason.
>>> Why is Fedora using a version of autotest from a year ago instead of
>>> something far more recent????
> Because it is a big PITA to get Fedora to approve new package reviewers.
> It is been months that cleber is dilligently going from review to
> review to finally become one, but it usually takes 20 days every
> iteration. At this staggering rate, he'll become a Fedora package
> mantainer by 2016. Seriously, I've been thinking "ok, now the
> package maintainership thing will be sorted out any minute now" for
> the past 4 months.
> Now once he becomes a package maintainer, up to date packages will
> start to show up.
Odd. Maybe that is for new packages. For existing packages it has taken
me less than a week to get approved to become a maintainer (with commit
privileges) for a package.
That is for new packages, because in order to be accepted as a packager,
you *have* to package a new package, which I find puzzling. I mean, what
if I want to assume an already existing package that was orphaned?
So Cleber, in order to become a maintainer, had to present a new
software to package (arc, the new autotest rpc client that he wrote),
and he's been since then trying to get all the *shoulds* and whatnot. He
took 2 months writing a system to generate the man pages for arc, and
other requests. You can see a summary of what is going on here:
It seems now that the package reviewers want him to participate in other
package reviews to demonstrate 'he knows the rules', so while he doesn't
post links to said package reviews he chimed in, they'll keep the
request on hold.