Open Questions - Playground: reviews

Tadej Janež tadej.janez at
Tue Apr 1 11:37:28 UTC 2014

On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 16:07 +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: 
> 1/ fedora-review wasn't written for automatic checks. It was meant to be 
> helping reviewers review, output shouldn't be blindly followed.
>  From your examples there are many, which fedora-review do incorrectly 
> on groups of packages.

Yes, I understand that FedoraReview isn't perfect (yet) :).

I just tried to show that we have something we could start with and I
deliberately chose those checks that can be done automatically if the
package doesn't involve some special cases.

> 2/ Maybe we should vote about the conflicts and write it down as a rule. 
> I have a feeling we are discussing it everytime.


> I believe too much guidelines make Playground hardly accessible to 
> general maintainers. Why not to start with less guidelines and add them 
> if there are problems?

I believe packagers will make mistakes (most of the time not
deliberately), so we should make sure we automatically catch as many as
we can.

Yes, we can start with a small amount of checks in our guidelines/policy
and gradually add them later. What I would like to do now is that we
decide that we want to create a framework for automatic package checking
that could be extended later.
And in my opinion, we should use this framework on initial review and
during package's lifetime as a sort of CI.


More information about the env-and-stacks mailing list