amending the new package process

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:04:37PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
> 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.
Sure, and it's a good thing to encourage all potential packagers to do,
both on their own and on others' packages.

> 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.
Yes, I agree with all that. But making those informal reviews more
official would help the reviews engage in them more, and reduce our
review backlog a bit.
 
> 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.
I was talking about the informal reviewer and the formal reviewer, and the
responsibility for the *review*. Not the packager of the package.

Zbyszek