amending the new package process

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
> <nmav at 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 not reviewed for 2 months, the
> >> > package must be reviewed by the submitter, and a git module with the
> >> > master branch will be approved.
> >> The self review doesn't make sense, since I expect you did the package
> >> to your best knowledge already and you really want second pair of eyes
> >> to find any issues which slipped through your hands.
> >> At least myself, I always looking for reviewer who cares to find every
> >> issues I missed, challenge my knowledge and I'd be quite unhappy to
> >> discover later that something slipped through review unnoticed.
> >
> > 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.
> 
> I've often thought having a "staging" repository for packages in this
> state would be nice.  They could be worked on there, and then promoted
> to the full repo when they passed review.

This was one of the main ideas behind Playground repository [1]. And one
thing we had hard times to agree on (is it staging or repository for 
something that will never go to Fedora proper?).

Maybe it's really time to revive it. On the other hand, Copr itself 
helped a lot (And Copr would backup the whole Playground repo). 

Jaroslav

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Playground_repository 

> josh
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct