[Bug 529496] Review Request: libmtag - An advanced C music tagging library with a simple API

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529496

--- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> 2010-01-11 12:39:41 EST ---
Felipe,

I have no interest in argueing. I also don't want to appear as a commander who
orders you to do something. Yet your replies make this bugzilla ticket more
tiresome than necessary. As such I won't be the one to approve your account.
There are others who may do so.

If most of your answers to requests/recommendations are of the types "I refuse
to do this" and "I want to retain the freedom to not that", this causes
unnecessary trouble. I don't want to put my hands into the fire for such
people.

> I don't see anything on the license that *requires* to add
> copyright/license disclaimers to each file. It says it's
> *desirable*, but ultimately an "upstream" choice.

So what? It's a HOWTO: "How to apply these terms to your program?"  I consider
it good practise to actually apply the licence terms like that. Hence I told
you about it, since you did not even include the license text. All that
mattered to me at that point of the review was your comment on that hint, not
immediate action. Consider it an attitude-check.

> You can find many source files in the linux kernel that don't have such
> notices.

And that doesn't change anything. You can find many packages, which are bad
examples. If we had based early Fedora on bad/poor examples, it would have
failed.


[compiler warnings]

> It's a bit difficult to spot them with so much noise.

Redirect stderr. Or use grep.


[rpmlint]

> I followed the "Package Review Process" and I don't see this in any
> of the steps  for my role of "Contributor".

It's related to getting sponsored and being a packager, who knows the
guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored#Reviewing_Packages

Why would you ignore rpmlint output without a brief comment on it? A short
comment would have been a change to show that you know your stuff.

> If you want people to post rpmlint output on the first run,
> then the review process document must be updated.

So, you want to _be forced_ to run helpful tools? And you would only take a
look at compiler output if you were forced to do that?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.