amending the new package process

[Haïkel]

2015-01-21 11:49 GMT+01:00 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav at redhat.com>:
>
> Step 6: ... If the proposed package is not reviewed for 2 months, the
> package must be reviewed by the submitter, and a git module with the
> master branch will be approved.
>

I share your concern about the pending list but self-review is not acceptable.
Just licensing review itself would be a blocker to your proposal.

But if we were to have a staging repository as suggested by Josh and Jaroslav,
 it could be something that we could consider.


What saddens me is that we have plenty of packagers and sponsors and only
a very small fraction does review.
We should find a way to encourage people doing review even *INFORMAL*
ones.
Good informal reviews is the best way to get sponsored, and helps decreasing
the pile (as a sponsor, I approve a positive and good quality informal
review by my mentees).


Besides, some submitters do not try hard enough to find reviewers:
* some reviews do not provide usable links to spec and srpm breaking usage of
semi-automated reviewing tool. The more information you give to the reviewer,
the more likely it will get reviewed fast.
* reviews swapping: 376 pending reviews but how many swapping requests
on this list ?
* Just go asking your fellow packagers on irc/mail or SIG if there's one.
though I keep telling that I'm more than willing to do python reviews
(for free, no swapping!),
very little people ping me.

If everyone does an effort, it will be less of a problem.

H.


PS: please no badges for reviewing, it would probably help getting
more reviewers
at the expense of quality. Reviews quality is also another problem.