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 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
>>> packagers to do formal reviews, except that an actual packager with review
>>> rights has to ack the review.
>>
>> This is exactly what informal reviews are.
> I have never seen it work like that. If it wasn't clear, I think the
> (official) packager should be able to just say: I approve this review.
> If the review is bothed, the onus should fall on both parties. Currently
> the (offical) packager takes all the responsibility.
>
I think, this is an misconception.
We should encourage people, to do more informal reviews. The thing is,
it's not that easy to dive deep into material here. Simply running
fedora-review and copy/pasting stuff into bz is a starter.
Sure, and it's a
good thing to encourage all potential packagers to do,
both on their own and on others' packages.
Each informal review helps to identify potential issues with a
package.
On the other side, they will serve as learning material for the new
packager. Reading others code helps to improve your own.
Yes, I agree with all
that. But making those informal reviews more
official would help the reviews engage in them more, and reduce our
review backlog a bit.
About responsibility: both are responsible now. Of course, the
package
owner or point of contact is the person getting bz emails etc, but the
reviewer is the person letting issues get into SCM.
I was talking about the
informal reviewer and the formal reviewer, and the
responsibility for the *review*. Not the packager of the package.
Zbyszek