[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 #14 from Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras at gmail.com> 2010-01-11 15:01:41 EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> 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.

Is there a policy against thinking? I haven't refused to do anything, I've just
asked a question: Why? If that's too tiresome for you, I'm sure you can find
more edifying experiences with people that don't ask questions and just do as
you say.

> > 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.

There's a difference between a *requirement* and a *recommendation*. It is
perfectly OK for me not to follow a *recommendation*, and you should not punish
me for having a different opinion.

> > 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.

*You* think it's a bad example, *I* think it's a good example. Fedora doesn't
have a policy on this, and GNU says it's OK.

If you want to push for your preference, this bug is not the right place to do
that, but some Fedora guideline.

> [compiler warnings]
> 
> > It's a bit difficult to spot them with so much noise.
> 
> Redirect stderr. Or use grep.

Even better would be to reduce the noise in the first place.

> [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:

I'm sorry, my intention here is to get my package accepted (contribute). Later
I might apply to actually be a packager if that's not too much trouble. In any
case, I was under the impression that the *first step* was to submit a package.
Reviewing comes later.

> 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.

It's a *warning*. I thought commenting on unimportant stuff would be
detrimental. If it was really important it wouldn't be a warning, but an error.

That of course depends on the definition of "warning", but I'm not a
mind-reader.

> > 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?

*first run* <- see this?

On the first try people are bound to follow the instructions, and that's
*exactly* what I did.


Now, let's be productive and focus on *this bug* which is about reviewing the
libmtag package. All the requirements have been met, haven't they? If not,
what's missing?

-- 
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.