amending the new package process

[Matthias Runge]

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.

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.

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.

Matthias