On 01/22/2015 07:15 PM, Haïkel wrote:
> 2015-01-21 11:49 GMT+01:00
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@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 self-review
is not acceptable.
> Just licensing review itself would be a blocker to your
proposal.
>
> But if we were to have a staging repository as suggested by
Josh and Jaroslav,
> it could be something that we could consider.
>
>
> What saddens me is that we have plenty of packagers and
sponsors and only
> a very small fraction does review.
> We should find a way to encourage people doing review even
*INFORMAL*
> ones.
> Good informal reviews is the best way to get sponsored, and
helps decreasing
> the pile (as a sponsor, I approve a positive and good quality
informal
> review by my mentees).
>
>
> 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 reviewing tool. The more information you give
to the reviewer,
> the more likely it will get reviewed fast.
> * reviews swapping: 376 pending reviews but how many swapping
requests
> on this list ?
> * Just go asking your fellow packagers on irc/mail or SIG if
there's one.
> though I keep telling that I'm more than willing to do python
reviews
> (for free, no swapping!),
> very little people ping me.
>
> If everyone does an effort, it will be less of a problem.
>
> H.
>
>
> PS: please no badges for reviewing, it would probably help
getting
> more reviewers
> at the expense of quality. Reviews quality is also another
problem.
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 as-is, while it can be frustrating for all the reasons
described, encourages new contributors to get acquainted with their
fellow packagers and their sponsors.
I'm not suggesting a de facto "you must be sociable to be a Fedora
Packager", but the process does reinforce that you're not alone when
you get stuck, and you're not so isolated that nobody cares if you
make a mistake. The informal reviews, irc chats, and list mails
don't just garner experience; they help develop a sense of
participation, and that leads to greater contributor retention.
Maybe some list or other communication channel that's more clearly
for packaging issues - I'm told devel@ can be intimidating - would
help, but I'm not really suggesting anything specific. Everyone in
the thread here, and probably far more, have answered inane
questions from me at one time or another :P Sometimes more process
and more guides can help, and sometimes you just need to bounce your
understanding of the subject off someone to clear up misconceptions
and gain a little confidence. That part isn't broken, but maybe new
packagers don't know it.
--
-- Pete
PS: Haïkel, if you're passing out python reviews...