amending the new package process

[Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos]

On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 09:57 -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote:

> > That's wishful thinking. I proposed that rule in order to make apparent
> > the fact that there are not enough reviewers and new packages are
> > blocked in the queue. Ignoring the fact isn't going to make it go away.
> True, there are not enough _voluntary_ reviewers.  But review swaps generally seem to work, or don’t they in your experience?
> > > And there is nothing wrong with review swaps. You help others, they help
> > > you.
> > That's good for you, but unacceptable to me. That way we penalize people
> > who add packages.
> Penalize in what sense? 

In the sense, that in addition to packaging something new you have to
review something else in order to get your new package in. If reviewing
is voluntary it should affect every packager the same, not just the ones
who bring new packages.

>  It is unavoidable that when reviews are mandatory, overall the project’s 
> contributors need to do as many reviews as new code additions.  That’s not 
> a penalty for anything, it is just a task, or, to put it another way, 
> Fedora’s choice of desired packaging quality level.

My view is different. Since only the packagers would bring something new
need to review, I see it as a penalty. The more you bring in, the more
you need to review. If you don't bring anything in; no need for reviews.

>    As to whether this quality level is warranted and those reviews are
>    necessary, unfortunately, with the current packaging mechanisms, it
> probably is; because there are quite a few ways to screw up or to take
> shortcuts, and people who want to primarily focus on application source
>         code instead of packaging tend to take these shortcuts at most
> opportunities (and historically Red Hat employees have been the sources
>                      of most of the most egregious shortcuts or worse)

I am not against reviews, I'm against something I see it doesn't work.
If I see it as an external contributor to the project, having to wait
several months to get a review of my new addition is something that
would certainly deter me from contributing to the project.

I will be more than happy to prove me wrong. The best is to have a
measurable goal for the process of reviews; E.g., 90% of the reviews
have to happen before X days, or months or years, or the review process
must change. Otherwise we are keeping quality by avoiding anything new.

regards,
Nikos