Package Review Stats for the week ending January 18th, 2009

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Mittwoch, den 28.01.2009, 14:48 -0800 schrieb Jesse Keating:
> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 23:35 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >  Some examples:
> >       * Recently I updated some of the Xfce 4.6 packages. One of them
> >         was approved without _any_ docs.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477732
also all the desktop files were installed and listed in %files twice and
if the reviewer had tested the package he would have noticed that. Site
note: The reviewer has been made a sponsor 2 weeks later.

> >       * A package was approved with more then 19 missing deps on
> >         binaries.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459535

> >       * A font package was approved although it contained another font

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481501 

> > I'm not giving the bz # now because I don't want to point fingers. If
> > you are interested, contact me off-list.
> 
> I am interested, as it means we have reviewers who need to be re-taught
> how to review.  Their sponsors should be made aware of this too.

Do RH employes have sponsors too? A lot of the bad reviews are done by
RH people and a lot of bad specs come from RH folks. Somebody pointed me
to:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433678
and I had a quick glance over it before Andreas added his comments:
      * no list of tests that have been run
      * SourceURL is missing
      * I can't even find the source because URL is wrong
      * without the source you cannot check the License tag, md5, etc
      * docs not marked %doc 
      * ... (I'm sure Andreas will spot some more issures)

>   We
> shouldn't be afraid to call out questionable behavior, this is open
> source after all, and peer review is key.

Ok, here you are.

Regards,
Christoph