On 08/22/2016 04:49 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>> "PV" == Petr Viktorin
PV> As a note to anyone interested in alternate versions: The Guidelines
PV> were recently changed, so the Fedora review should be easier than
Yeah, we had done this before flock (which is why I mentioned that
review wasn't necessary at flock) but didn't get to write it up at flock.
PV> I find the new wording ambiguous,
Would be happy to know what you find to be ambiguous. I will admit that
the process isn't particularly good since the pkgdb request wants an
review ticket, but that's kind of beyond the scope of the packaging
The Review Guidelines list cases in which you don't have to follow the
Review Process, but don't say what you *should* do in these cases. The
contributor is left to cherry-pick parts of the process that make sense.
That's probably a good thing -- I reckon the idea is that it's still
good to follow the process, but an exception allows you to skip any of
its steps as you see fit. But that idea isn't communicated very clearly.
From the wording it's also unclear to me if the exception is meant to
effectively change "MUST" items into "SHOULD". From the way the
[[Packaging:ReviewGuidelines]] and [[Package_Review_Process]] pages link
to each other, it's not clear if "Things To Check On Review" is just
part of the process or something that can't be skipped even with an