Re: [Fedora-packaging] Suggestion: require inclusion of cvs location in completed review request

[Toshio Kuratomi]

David Timms wrote:

>  At the moment, many .spec URLs that are hosted outside Fedora are
> taken 
>  down the moment or shortly after the process is complete. Hence it makes 
>   it difficult to learn from the efforts of others in a package review in 
>  Fedora because the .spec is no longer linked in the spec/SRPM urls 
>  provided by the submitter.
>  
>  The second issue is that browsing the cvs server is quite slow - mainly 
>  at the point where the "folder" has the complete list of {3000} package 
>  folders. This means we could immediately click through to the correct 
>  folder in the cvs server, rather than trawling from the top level.
>   
This is only a partial help since it's not easily discoverable by a new 
user but it will keep you from having to browse the complete foleder 
list on the cvs server::
   http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/rpms/PKGNAME

>  Any comments, rejections to this idea ?
>   
Like Rathann, I'm against this if it's a manual requirement but if it 
were automated it would be useful.  If you would be willing to 
contribute some code, the cvs request needs to become something that is 
entered into the package database.  The bugzilla address will be entered 
as part of this so that the cvs admin can continue to verify the 
reviews.  So it would be possible to automate adding a link to viewcvs 
at the end of this process.

>  In the meantime, if you think it is a good idea, it would be
> appreciated 
>   for others to do this in any case - if that is allowed ? 
If a packager wants to do this themselves they are welcome to do it.

>  ===
>  Another idea along these lines would be to have a staging CVS server 
>  that the reviewer would be required to commit the original and changes 
>  to the spec under development. This could then be committed to the real 
>  cvs server after acceptance. The submitter would still put his srpms on 
>  his own url, not in the staging cvs server.
>  
>  This would make it simpler to get a live diff on what the submitter's 
>  changes have been, rather than viewing the spec as a whole and trying to 
>  find the changes.
>   
This could be useful but it would be a separate process for people to 
learn and a separate cvs instance that would have to be maintained.  I'm 
not sure that we want to do this because of the overhead.  At least, 
we'd want to get the pkgdb's automated closing of package bugs written 
first so we could see if we could make an automated opening as well.

(Note: This would require people, at minimum, to have signed the CLA 
before submitting their first package.)

-Toshio