headers
Christoph Wickert | 7 Oct 20:35

Disappointed: My feature was removed without noticing me

I have been informed that my LXDE feature [1] has been removed from F10
and delayed fore F11. I'm very disappointed about that, especially
because nobody cared to inform me about this decision.

I knew my feature was late, but I did everything I could to rescue it. I
followed all the advice from the feature wrangler, what more could I do?
Upon this question the feature wrangler told my that I had to watch
fedora-devel-announce and especially the meeting minutes. But this won't
help because no announcement has been made on the list and the latest
meeting minutes were published on September 10th. (BTW: Meeting minutes
seem to be published only sporadic recently.)

Looking through the IRC log [2] I find only very little information
about the LXDE removal. The topic was discussed very shortly and the
decision was made by only 2 people. And I think it was based on wrong
information. wwoods incorrectly assumed there were _no_ LXDE packages
ready yet, nirik corrected him the _some_ are ready, but in fact _all_
except two are.
The only argument that's sounds convincing to me (although I don't
really understand it) is nottings concerns about the breaking the string
freeze. Can somebody please explain this a little more in depth to me?
Looking at the F10 schedule i see string freeze was on September 11, so
why did nobody realize that my feature collided with string freeze
anyway?

So my questions are:
     1. If we could finish the reviews within the next two days, is
        there still a chance left to get this feature into F10?
     2. If we can't get it ready as a feature, can I at least get the
        missing packages into F10 and make rel-eng tag them final?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bill Nottingham | 7 Oct 20:46
Favicon

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without noticing me

Christoph Wickert (christoph.wickert <at> googlemail.com) said: 
> The only argument that's sounds convincing to me (although I don't
> really understand it) is nottings concerns about the breaking the string
> freeze. Can somebody please explain this a little more in depth to me?
> Looking at the F10 schedule i see string freeze was on September 11, so
> why did nobody realize that my feature collided with string freeze
> anyway?

Groups in comps (and their descriptions) are translatable strings; adding
or changing them breaks the string freeze.

Bill

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christoph Wickert | 7 Oct 20:51

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without noticing me

Am Dienstag, den 07.10.2008, 14:46 -0400 schrieb Bill Nottingham:
> Christoph Wickert (christoph.wickert <at> googlemail.com) said: 
> > The only argument that's sounds convincing to me (although I don't
> > really understand it) is nottings concerns about the breaking the string
> > freeze. Can somebody please explain this a little more in depth to me?
> > Looking at the F10 schedule i see string freeze was on September 11, so
> > why did nobody realize that my feature collided with string freeze
> > anyway?
> 
> Groups in comps (and their descriptions) are translatable strings; adding
> or changing them breaks the string freeze.

Ok then, but why did nobody from FeSCo or rel-eng realize that before?

And are translations really that important? It's only two strings and I
remember that we had not-translated comps before.

> 
> Bill
> 

Regards,
Christoph

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bill Nottingham | 7 Oct 21:00
Favicon

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without noticing me

Christoph Wickert (christoph.wickert <at> googlemail.com) said: 
> > > The only argument that's sounds convincing to me (although I don't
> > > really understand it) is nottings concerns about the breaking the string
> > > freeze. Can somebody please explain this a little more in depth to me?
> > > Looking at the F10 schedule i see string freeze was on September 11, so
> > > why did nobody realize that my feature collided with string freeze
> > > anyway?
> > 
> > Groups in comps (and their descriptions) are translatable strings; adding
> > or changing them breaks the string freeze.
> 
> Ok then, but why did nobody from FeSCo or rel-eng realize that before?

I'm not sure what you mean. The feature is supposed to be testable by
the feature freeze, which is the same time as the string freeze. So it
doesn't need called out specifically unless it *doesn't* make the feature
freeze.

Bill

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christoph Wickert | 7 Oct 21:11

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without noticing me

Am Dienstag, den 07.10.2008, 15:00 -0400 schrieb Bill Nottingham:
> Christoph Wickert (christoph.wickert <at> googlemail.com) said: 
> > > > The only argument that's sounds convincing to me (although I don't
> > > > really understand it) is nottings concerns about the breaking the string
> > > > freeze. Can somebody please explain this a little more in depth to me?
> > > > Looking at the F10 schedule i see string freeze was on September 11, so
> > > > why did nobody realize that my feature collided with string freeze
> > > > anyway?
> > > 
> > > Groups in comps (and their descriptions) are translatable strings; adding
> > > or changing them breaks the string freeze.
> > 
> > Ok then, but why did nobody from FeSCo or rel-eng realize that before?
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean. The feature is supposed to be testable by
> the feature freeze, which is the same time as the string freeze. So it
> doesn't need called out specifically unless it *doesn't* make the feature
> freeze.

Ok, agreed, but when feature freeze was on Sept. 11th, then they could
have told me _much_earlier_ that my feature was out of luck anyway.
Maybe we would have find a way cope with that, for example already make
the comps changes so the strings are there for translation.

> Bill
> 
Christoph

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kevin Kofler | 8 Oct 11:25
Favicon

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without noticing me

Bill Nottingham <notting <at> redhat.com> writes:
> Groups in comps (and their descriptions) are translatable strings; adding
> or changing them breaks the string freeze.

Does "LXDE" really need to be translated? Can't we just use "LXDE" as the 
category name? We could also easily write a script which takes the translations 
for "KDE desktop" (or "XFCE desktop"), does a s/KDE/LXDE/ and puts that as the 
translation of "LXDE desktop" (and refuses the translation with a warning 
if "KDE" doesn't appear, just in case it has been transliterated).

        Kevin Kofler

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kevin Kofler | 8 Oct 11:44
Favicon

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without noticing me

I wrote:
> Does "LXDE" really need to be translated? Can't we just use "LXDE" as the 
> category name?

Looking at it, that's exactly what XFCE already does, so why can't LXDE just do 
the same? A proper noun needs no translation.

> We could also easily write a script which takes the translations for "KDE
> desktop" (or "XFCE desktop"), does a s/KDE/LXDE/ and puts that as the
> translation of "LXDE desktop" (and refuses the translation with a warning 
> if "KDE" doesn't appear, just in case it has been transliterated).

This turns out not to make sense, as KDE's string is "KDE (K Desktop 
Environment)" and XFCE's string is just "XFCE".

        Kevin Kofler

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bill Nottingham | 8 Oct 17:12
Favicon

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without noticing me

Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler <at> chello.at) said: 
> I wrote:
> > Does "LXDE" really need to be translated? Can't we just use "LXDE" as the 
> > category name?
> 
> Looking at it, that's exactly what XFCE already does, so why can't LXDE just do 
> the same? A proper noun needs no translation.

There are descriptions which are translated as well....

Bill

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kevin Kofler | 8 Oct 17:43
Favicon

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without noticing me

Bill Nottingham <notting <at> redhat.com> writes:
> There are descriptions which are translated as well....

Well, leave it blank, leave it in English (untranslated), put just a URL for 
the upstream web page as the description, write just "LXDE" as the description 
too, ... - anything is better than having a set of packages all packaged and 
reviewed, but hidden from users (not listed in comps, and rejected as a feature 
on the ground that it isn't in comps).

       Kevin Kofler

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bill Nottingham | 8 Oct 18:38
Favicon

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without noticing me

Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler <at> chello.at) said: 
> Bill Nottingham <notting <at> redhat.com> writes:
> > There are descriptions which are translated as well....
> 
> Well, leave it blank, leave it in English (untranslated), put just a URL for 
> the upstream web page as the description

... or, actually follow the string freeze, and the string freeze break
policy.

> too, ... - anything is better than having a set of packages all packaged and 
> reviewed, but hidden from users (not listed in comps, and rejected as a feature 
> on the ground that it isn't in comps).

I'm sorry, but I'm missing the outrage - the feature page listed the
following things, under 'Scope':

  * Package Reviews  (were not fully done)

  * Comps: new group with id "lxde-desktop", name "LXDE"...
	o mandatory: lxde-common, lxpanel, openbox, pcmanfm
	o default: gpicview, leafpad, lxappearance, lxtask, lxterminal, obconf, xarchiver
	... (wasn't done)

and, under 'Test Plan':

  As most of the packages are already in fedora they are proven to be stable. So we need to

  1. get the 2 missing packages into rawhide ASAP so they are included in the F10 Beta
  2. add packages to comps
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christoph Wickert | 8 Oct 20:09

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 12:38 -0400 schrieb Bill Nottingham:
> Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler <at> chello.at) said: 
> > Bill Nottingham <notting <at> redhat.com> writes:
> > > There are descriptions which are translated as well....
> > 
> > Well, leave it blank, leave it in English (untranslated), put just a URL for 
> > the upstream web page as the description
> 
> ... or, actually follow the string freeze, and the string freeze break
> policy.

The first constructive statement I hear from a FeSCo member. In fact you
are the _only_ FeSCo member who responded to my mail at all.
> 
> > too, ... - anything is better than having a set of packages all packaged and 
> > reviewed, but hidden from users (not listed in comps, and rejected as a feature 
> > on the ground that it isn't in comps).
> 
> I'm sorry, but I'm missing the outrage -

I will try to explain it to you, please read below.

>  the feature page listed the
> following things, under 'Scope':
>   
>   * Package Reviews  (were not fully done)

But that's not my fault I guess.
>   
>   * Comps: new group with id "lxde-desktop", name "LXDE"...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Toshio Kuratomi | 8 Oct 21:20

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 12:38 -0400 schrieb Bill Nottingham:
>> Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler <at> chello.at) said: 
>>> Bill Nottingham <notting <at> redhat.com> writes:
>>>> There are descriptions which are translated as well....
>>> Well, leave it blank, leave it in English (untranslated), put just a URL for 
>>> the upstream web page as the description
>> ... or, actually follow the string freeze, and the string freeze break
>> policy.
> 
> The first constructive statement I hear from a FeSCo member. In fact you
> are the _only_ FeSCo member who responded to my mail at all.
>>> too, ... - anything is better than having a set of packages all packaged and 
>>> reviewed, but hidden from users (not listed in comps, and rejected as a feature 
>>> on the ground that it isn't in comps).
>> I'm sorry, but I'm missing the outrage -
> 
> I will try to explain it to you, please read below.
> 
>>  the feature page listed the
>> following things, under 'Scope':
>>   
>>   * Package Reviews  (were not fully done)
> 
> But that's not my fault I guess.

There is no fault here... there is only work done or not done.  If the
Feature says that the packages are needed for the feature to be complete
and they are not reviewed then the feature is incomplete.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christoph Wickert | 8 Oct 22:49

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 12:20 -0700 schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
> Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > 
> > Wasn't done because
> >       * of the missing reviews
> >       * I expected someone from FeSCo to give me a go.
> > 
> This would be miscommunication, then.  AFAIK, comps is open to
> maintainers to make changes to.  Maintainers are expected to do that.

Wait: I'm expected to introduce a new group in comps without previous
discussion and without explicit permission from FeSCo? I remember
endless discussions about new groups here. If everybody was allowed to
make new groups whenever he wants I'm sure that comps will be hosed
pretty soon.

> We should have a rule like:
>  Communication happens on the Feature Discussion Page
> or:
>   Communication happens via private email between the feature owner and
> the feature wrangler
> or:
>   Communication happens via the FESCo Meeting Summary
> 
> so that everyone knows that there's a one-stop shop to put out and
> receive information.

+1.

> >       * the wiki says [1]: "The feature owner is responsible for
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Nicolas Mailhot | 8 Oct 23:47
Favicon

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

Le mercredi 08 octobre 2008 à 22:49 +0200, Christoph Wickert a écrit :

> Wait: I'm expected to introduce a new group in comps without previous
> discussion and without explicit permission from FeSCo? 

Comps is both central and under-regulated. You'll have a hard time
finding who is supposed to approve comps policy, and the files
themselves are wide open.

However out of respect both for the people working on comps
translatations, and for the people working of comps consummers, I
personnaly wouldn't make any deep restructuring such as new group
creation after test1 (to give people time to react)

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Brian Pepple | 9 Oct 00:41
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 22:49 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> 
> Agreed, but my point is: They don't need to know all details, but they
> need to read the feature page. And if the page says that 9 out of 11
> packages are done I expect FeSCo members to know that, not more, not
> less, but I expect somebody to not incorrectly state that none of the
> packages is available.

Umm, no FESCo member did state that.  A member of the QA did, and a
FESCo member (nirik) corrected him.

Later,
/B
-- 
Brian Pepple <bpepple <at> fedoraproject.org>

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B  CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christoph Wickert | 10 Oct 01:44

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 18:41 -0400 schrieb Brian Pepple:
> On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 22:49 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > 
> > Agreed, but my point is: They don't need to know all details, but they
> > need to read the feature page. And if the page says that 9 out of 11
> > packages are done I expect FeSCo members to know that, not more, not
> > less, but I expect somebody to not incorrectly state that none of the
> > packages is available.
> 
> Umm, no FESCo member did state that.  A member of the QA did, and a
> FESCo member (nirik) corrected him.

But niriks statement was incorrect too, as I already pointed out.
Anyway, I'm tired of this discussion now.

Regards,
Christoph

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Richard W.M. Jones | 8 Oct 21:23
Favicon

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:09:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>  * the decision was made by people who obviously did not read the
>    feature page and have no interest in the feature. If somebody
>    has not read the page he should not speak up on that topic or
>    decide about it, and if he has further question he should ask.

Fully agreed with you on this point.  If FESCo members would volunteer
to package up even some tiny MinGW package[1], then I think the
standard of debate on the MinGW issue would be hugely improved.

Rich.

[1] Something relatively uncomplicated like curl or expat.  Patches
welcome.

-- 
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat  http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/
Fedora now supports 68 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#)
http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Josh Boyer | 8 Oct 22:59

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:23:08PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:09:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>>  * the decision was made by people who obviously did not read the
>>    feature page and have no interest in the feature. If somebody
>>    has not read the page he should not speak up on that topic or
>>    decide about it, and if he has further question he should ask.
>
>Fully agreed with you on this point.  If FESCo members would volunteer
>to package up even some tiny MinGW package[1], then I think the
>standard of debate on the MinGW issue would be hugely improved.

If FESCo has to go and be an intimate part of a Feature in order
for it to get approved or discussed, then that is what I would
consider to be a very large failure.  Reality dictates that the
9 people in FESCo do not have infinite time to do explicit
things with every single Feature that gets presented.
FESCo is a steering committee. We rely on you, the developers,
to do your part for Features.

It's the Feature owners responsibility to present clear and 
concise information on the Feature.  You did that rather well
for MinGW.  Debate on things will naturally happen.  You also
did a good job participating there.  I believe I can honestly
say that you were the most active Feature owner for this release
in making sure your Feature was understood and completed.

And I'd like to point out that LXDE (and Haskell, and others)
were _approved_ for F10.  They were dropped later for nothing
more than lack of following the Feature process.  Not out of
spite, or lack of interest, or some evil desire to promote
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kevin Fenzi | 8 Oct 21:24

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:09:12 +0200
christoph.wickert <at> googlemail.com (Christoph Wickert) wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 12:38 -0400 schrieb Bill Nottingham:
> > Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler <at> chello.at) said: 
> > > Bill Nottingham <notting <at> redhat.com> writes:
> > > > There are descriptions which are translated as well....
> > > 
> > > Well, leave it blank, leave it in English (untranslated), put
> > > just a URL for the upstream web page as the description
> > 
> > ... or, actually follow the string freeze, and the string freeze
> > break policy.
> 
> The first constructive statement I hear from a FeSCo member. In fact
> you are the _only_ FeSCo member who responded to my mail at all.

Sorry, I can't speak for the rest of the FESCo members, but I have been
really busy with my regular job and also I have been mostly in
agreement with the posts by Bill. To expect everyone to respond to a
post on a busy list in under 24 hours can be a bit much. 

> >   * Package Reviews  (were not fully done)
> 
> But that's not my fault I guess.

No it's not. I feel partially to blame, as I looked at those reviews
and they looked to be in progress, but it looks like no one is formally
reviewing them after all. ;(
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christoph Wickert | 8 Oct 23:33

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 13:24 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:09:12 +0200
> christoph.wickert <at> googlemail.com (Christoph Wickert) wrote:
> 
> > Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 12:38 -0400 schrieb Bill Nottingham:
> > > Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler <at> chello.at) said: 
> > > > Bill Nottingham <notting <at> redhat.com> writes:
> > > > > There are descriptions which are translated as well....
> > > > 
> > > > Well, leave it blank, leave it in English (untranslated), put
> > > > just a URL for the upstream web page as the description
> > > 
> > > ... or, actually follow the string freeze, and the string freeze
> > > break policy.
> > 
> > The first constructive statement I hear from a FeSCo member. In fact
> > you are the _only_ FeSCo member who responded to my mail at all.
> 
> Sorry, I can't speak for the rest of the FESCo members, but I have been
> really busy with my regular job and also I have been mostly in
> agreement with the posts by Bill. To expect everyone to respond to a
> post on a busy list in under 24 hours can be a bit much.

Sorry for waiting only 23:28 hours before I expected a response ;) I
have seen these people (at least some of them) posting mails on this
list in the last 24 hours, so I assume they have read my mail too.

> > >   * Package Reviews  (were not fully done)
> > 
> > But that's not my fault I guess.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jarod Wilson | 9 Oct 02:47
Favicon

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

On Wednesday 08 October 2008 17:33:43 Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > >       * no FeSCo member except from Bill reacted to my previous mails.
> >
> > Sorry.
>
> Kevin, no need for further excuses, it's ok, although I'd really like to
> hear some more statements from people involved in that decision.

As Josh already said, its as simple as the Feature not being testable at 
freeze time, due to packages required by the Feature not yet being approved. 
In my mind, nothing more, nothing less.

Communication could certainly stand to be improved, which was one of the focal 
topics of today's FESCo meeting, but the schedule and feature process pages 
have been out there in the wiki for some time, and clearly state that if a 
Feature isn't testable at freeze time, it will be dropped. However, its only 
"dropped" in that its not a Feature touted for the impending release, no 
reason it can't still progress forward and be touted in the next release 
(and/or made available in the -updates repo for the release it missed, in the 
case of new packages like this).

> Nevertheless we should now focus on getting the packages into the repos
> ASAP.

Agreed. You've got a healthy head start on an F11 Feature here. :)

(Which I'll gladly try out on my netbook, though I'm actually pretty happy 
with the tweaked gnome setup I have on it now...)

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Josh Boyer | 8 Oct 22:47

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:09:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>Bill, I _do_ understand that my feature has been dropped because it
>is/was not testable and it breaks the string freeze, but I can not
>accept the way _how_ this decision was made. Let me quote the complete
>discussion about LXDE:
>
>> bpepple: Feature: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/LXDE
>> nirik: for lxde, sadly 2 packages are still in review... so I think it needs to go to 11 (ha ha).
>> dgilmore: so not testable
>> bpepple: nirik: do we know what's holding up those 2 reviews?
>> nirik: unless those packages aren't critical for testing, but I think they are.
>> nirik: bpepple: I glanced at them and there was a lot of discussion about what should be a subpackage, etc.
>> wwoods: none of the LXDE packages are even built, AFAICT
>> nirik: wwoods: some are, but thats because they were already in... like openbox is the windowmanager.
>> notting: well, if they try and add the comps group now, they'll be breaking the string freeze
>> nirik: yeah, so I think this should move back to next release... if they get it sooner great, we can trumpet
it in 11
>> bpepple: nirik: +1
>> notting: +1
>> bpepple: anyone disagree with pushing LXDE, otherwise we can move on.
>
>Obviously the only one who was at least a little informed is nirik, he's
>also the only one who apologized for "the lack of communication" in a
>conversation we had yesterday. But nirik is wrong too: Those LXDE
>packages that are already in Fedora are not there because they have been
>forever but because they were part of my feature (lxtask, lxterminal,
>lxlauncher, ...).
> 
>So the decision was made under the assumption that _none_ of the LXDE
>packages has ever passed a review. How can somebody who has read the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christoph Wickert | 8 Oct 22:56

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 16:47 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:09:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>
> >So the decision was made under the assumption that _none_ of the LXDE
> >packages has ever passed a review. How can somebody who has read the
> >feature page claim that? Why did nobody answer him back?
> 
> The decision was made under the _fact_ that the Feature lacked packages
> that had not passed review.  If they aren't all there, it can't be tested
> by Beta.  It's really that simple.

As I wrote in a previous mail: I don't challenge that, but for me it not
"really that simple" but "really that disappointing". I've put a lot of
work into the feature and when I see that people hardly seem to read the
feature page or don't care about informing the feature owner is just
disappointing.

> josh
> 
Regards,
Christoph

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Josh Boyer | 8 Oct 23:08

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 10:56:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 16:47 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
>> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:09:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>>
>> >So the decision was made under the assumption that _none_ of the LXDE
>> >packages has ever passed a review. How can somebody who has read the
>> >feature page claim that? Why did nobody answer him back?
>> 
>> The decision was made under the _fact_ that the Feature lacked packages
>> that had not passed review.  If they aren't all there, it can't be tested
>> by Beta.  It's really that simple.
>
>As I wrote in a previous mail: I don't challenge that, but for me it not
>"really that simple" but "really that disappointing". I've put a lot of
>work into the feature and when I see that people hardly seem to read the
>feature page or don't care about informing the feature owner is just
>disappointing.

I'm in FESCo.  I read the Feature page.  It was/is quite detailed.  It
still, unfortunately, doesn't meet the criteria of being a Feature.

Now, that doesn't mean your work is wasted.  It doesn't mean that,
assuming you get the missing packages into Fedora in time, LXDE won't
be installable.  It _will_ be.  All you are missing is the publicity
aspect of a Feature at that point.

Is that disappointing?  Yeah, perhaps.  But if you care enough (and
you seem to), then self-promoting LXDE is always a valid option.

josh
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christoph Wickert | 8 Oct 23:47

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 17:08 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 10:56:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 16:47 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> >> The decision was made under the _fact_ that the Feature lacked packages
> >> that had not passed review.  If they aren't all there, it can't be tested
> >> by Beta.  It's really that simple.
> >
> >As I wrote in a previous mail: I don't challenge that, but for me it not
> >"really that simple" but "really that disappointing". I've put a lot of
> >work into the feature and when I see that people hardly seem to read the
> >feature page or don't care about informing the feature owner is just
> >disappointing.
> 
> I'm in FESCo.  I read the Feature page.  

Just curious: Why didn't you speak up then when somebody made an false
assumption?

> It was/is quite detailed.  It
> still, unfortunately, doesn't meet the criteria of being a Feature.

You mean in general or for Fedora 10?

> Now, that doesn't mean your work is wasted.  It doesn't mean that,
> assuming you get the missing packages into Fedora in time, LXDE won't
> be installable.  It _will_ be.  All you are missing is the publicity
> aspect of a Feature at that point.

I don't care about publicity, I don't want people to pat me on my back
or to hug me. I want these packages in Fedora, because I want to satisfy
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Josh Boyer | 9 Oct 00:12

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 11:47:10PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 17:08 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
>> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 10:56:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> >Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 16:47 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
>> >> The decision was made under the _fact_ that the Feature lacked packages
>> >> that had not passed review.  If they aren't all there, it can't be tested
>> >> by Beta.  It's really that simple.
>> >
>> >As I wrote in a previous mail: I don't challenge that, but for me it not
>> >"really that simple" but "really that disappointing". I've put a lot of
>> >work into the feature and when I see that people hardly seem to read the
>> >feature page or don't care about informing the feature owner is just
>> >disappointing.
>> 
>> I'm in FESCo.  I read the Feature page.  
>
>Just curious: Why didn't you speak up then when somebody made an false
>assumption?

Because nobody in FESCo made that statement.  Kevin had already
said "for lxde, sadly 2 packages are still in review...".  The
rest of the discussion was pretty moot after that.

>
>> It was/is quite detailed.  It
>> still, unfortunately, doesn't meet the criteria of being a Feature.
>
>You mean in general or for Fedora 10?

Oh, just for F10.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
David Woodhouse | 9 Oct 10:03
Favicon

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 22:56 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 16:47 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:09:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >
> > >So the decision was made under the assumption that _none_ of the LXDE
> > >packages has ever passed a review. How can somebody who has read the
> > >feature page claim that? Why did nobody answer him back?
> > 
> > The decision was made under the _fact_ that the Feature lacked packages
> > that had not passed review.  If they aren't all there, it can't be tested
> > by Beta.  It's really that simple.
> 
> As I wrote in a previous mail: I don't challenge that, but for me it not
> "really that simple" but "really that disappointing". I've put a lot of
> work into the feature and when I see that people hardly seem to read the
> feature page or don't care about informing the feature owner is just
> disappointing

It is unfortunate that you didn't get informed properly. We'll make an
effort to ensure that kind of thing doesn't happen again. I apologise
for that, and I suspect I speak for the rest of FESCo when I do so.

One thing we can do in future to make that situation better is Cc the
feature owners when the meeting agenda is sent to fedora-devel-list. I
hope we can manage that.

The other thing we should do, of course, is work out _why_ you didn't
get the notification. Do you get _any_ notifications? Was it just this
one which was missing? Is there someone from the infrastructure team who
can look into that? ISTR you said that you were the last person to edit
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christoph Wickert | 10 Oct 01:41

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

Am Donnerstag, den 09.10.2008, 09:03 +0100 schrieb David Woodhouse:
> On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 22:56 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 16:47 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> > > On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:09:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > >
> > > >So the decision was made under the assumption that _none_ of the LXDE
> > > >packages has ever passed a review. How can somebody who has read the
> > > >feature page claim that? Why did nobody answer him back?
> > > 
> > > The decision was made under the _fact_ that the Feature lacked packages
> > > that had not passed review.  If they aren't all there, it can't be tested
> > > by Beta.  It's really that simple.
> > 
> > As I wrote in a previous mail: I don't challenge that, but for me it not
> > "really that simple" but "really that disappointing". I've put a lot of
> > work into the feature and when I see that people hardly seem to read the
> > feature page or don't care about informing the feature owner is just
> > disappointing
> 
> It is unfortunate that you didn't get informed properly. We'll make an
> effort to ensure that kind of thing doesn't happen again. I apologise
> for that, and I suspect I speak for the rest of FESCo when I do so.
> 
> One thing we can do in future to make that situation better is Cc the
> feature owners when the meeting agenda is sent to fedora-devel-list. I
> hope we can manage that.

Should not be that hard, there are not so many features/feature
owners. ;)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Josh Boyer | 10 Oct 02:01

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:41:32AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> Let's get the final two packages reviewed -- and that's another area
>> where we could do with some improvement, because failing to approve
>> packages really _is_ verging on the 'deletionism' you spoke of. But
>> that's a separate discussion.
>
>Agreed, we can discuss this later. BTW: The word "deletionsm" did not
>come from me, it was Josh who said that, but of course I agree with him.

I didn't say that.  Though I agree we need to be getting more packages
approved.

josh

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christoph Wickert | 10 Oct 02:12

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

Am Donnerstag, den 09.10.2008, 20:01 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:41:32AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >> Let's get the final two packages reviewed -- and that's another area
> >> where we could do with some improvement, because failing to approve
> >> packages really _is_ verging on the 'deletionism' you spoke of. But
> >> that's a separate discussion.
> >
> >Agreed, we can discuss this later. BTW: The word "deletionsm" did not
> >come from me, it was Josh who said that, but of course I agree with him.
> 
> I didn't say that.  Though I agree we need to be getting more packages
> approved.

I think this is something we all agree on. ;)

> josh
> 

Regards,
Christoph

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
David Woodhouse | 10 Oct 15:14
Favicon

Package review backlog.

On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 02:12 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 09.10.2008, 20:01 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:41:32AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > >> Let's get the final two packages reviewed -- and that's another area
> > >> where we could do with some improvement, because failing to approve
> > >> packages really _is_ verging on the 'deletionism' you spoke of. But
> > >> that's a separate discussion.
> > >
> > >Agreed, we can discuss this later. BTW: The word "deletionsm" did not
> > >come from me, it was Josh who said that, but of course I agree with him.
> > 
> > I didn't say that.  Though I agree we need to be getting more packages
> > approved.
> 
> I think this is something we all agree on. ;)

I propose that each FESCo member should try to work on at least one
package review per week. Each week at the FESCo meeting, we'll ask
members which reviews they've worked on in the past week.

It won't be _mandatory_ -- we're not going to send the boys round to
visit a FESCo member who doesn't do it. But FESCo should be setting a
good example.

And anyone else who considers themselves an active member of the Fedora
development community should also try to do the same. If one a week
isn't realistic due to other commitments, set yourself a more relaxed
target -- like one a fortnight, or one a month, and try to stick to
that.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jon Ciesla | 10 Oct 15:19
Favicon

Re: Package review backlog.


> On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 02:12 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, den 09.10.2008, 20:01 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
>> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:41:32AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> > >> Let's get the final two packages reviewed -- and that's another
>> area
>> > >> where we could do with some improvement, because failing to approve
>> > >> packages really _is_ verging on the 'deletionism' you spoke of. But
>> > >> that's a separate discussion.
>> > >
>> > >Agreed, we can discuss this later. BTW: The word "deletionsm" did not
>> > >come from me, it was Josh who said that, but of course I agree with
>> him.
>> >
>> > I didn't say that.  Though I agree we need to be getting more packages
>> > approved.
>>
>> I think this is something we all agree on. ;)
>
> I propose that each FESCo member should try to work on at least one
> package review per week. Each week at the FESCo meeting, we'll ask
> members which reviews they've worked on in the past week.
>
> It won't be _mandatory_ -- we're not going to send the boys round to
> visit a FESCo member who doesn't do it. But FESCo should be setting a
> good example.
>
> And anyone else who considers themselves an active member of the Fedora
> development community should also try to do the same. If one a week
> isn't realistic due to other commitments, set yourself a more relaxed
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christoph Wickert | 10 Oct 15:33

Re: Package review backlog.

Am Freitag, den 10.10.2008, 14:14 +0100 schrieb David Woodhouse:

> I propose that each FESCo member should try to work on at least one
> package review per week. Each week at the FESCo meeting, we'll ask
> members which reviews they've worked on in the past week.
>
> It won't be _mandatory_ -- 
[snipped] 

As a rule of thumb it's ok, but it should not be mandatory. I think the
FESCo members are already having a lot of work to do and I'm not sure if
everybody has enough spare time for reviews.

But perhaps we should think about making your proposal mandatory for
sponsors and - more important - for people who want to become a sponsor.

Christoph

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Patrice Dumas | 10 Oct 16:06
Favicon

Re: Package review backlog.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 03:33:33PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 10.10.2008, 14:14 +0100 schrieb David Woodhouse:
> 
> > I propose that each FESCo member should try to work on at least one
> > package review per week. Each week at the FESCo meeting, we'll ask
> > members which reviews they've worked on in the past week.
> >
> > It won't be _mandatory_ -- 
> [snipped] 
> 
> But perhaps we should think about making your proposal mandatory for
> sponsors and - more important - for people who want to become a sponsor.

This is taken into account in (secret) discussions about sponsors. Maybe
not enough, but as far as I can tell most sponsors have a good record of
reviews. There are certainly exception, but considering that the 3 who
do many reviews are sponsors, the balance for sponsors is very
positive... But it has to be that way, because it is easier to submit
packages than to do review (in my opinion) so experienced people should 
have a positive balance if things are to work smoothly.

--
Pat

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
David Woodhouse | 10 Oct 16:30
Favicon

Re: Package review backlog.

On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 15:33 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 10.10.2008, 14:14 +0100 schrieb David Woodhouse:
> 
> > I propose that each FESCo member should try to work on at least one
> > package review per week. Each week at the FESCo meeting, we'll ask
> > members which reviews they've worked on in the past week.
> >
> > It won't be _mandatory_ -- 
> [snipped] 
> 
> As a rule of thumb it's ok, but it should not be mandatory. I think the
> FESCo members are already having a lot of work to do and I'm not sure if
> everybody has enough spare time for reviews.

Absolutely. Besides, if you do call it 'mandatory' you have to start
defining what would happen if people don't comply, and the whole thing
just gets silly.

I'm talking about a 'recommended practice', and just asking people each
week which packages they've looked at. Nothing more.

And even though people are busy, it shouldn't actually take _that_ long
to make progress on reviewing a single package, each week.

> But perhaps we should think about making your proposal mandatory for
> sponsors and - more important - for people who want to become a sponsor.

I'm not sure I'd even go that far. Let's try just raising the profile of
package review first, and see where we get with it.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
John Poelstra | 11 Oct 05:22
Favicon

Re: Package review backlog.

David Woodhouse said the following on 10/10/2008 07:30 AM Pacific Time:
> On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 15:33 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> Am Freitag, den 10.10.2008, 14:14 +0100 schrieb David Woodhouse:
>>
>>> I propose that each FESCo member should try to work on at least one
>>> package review per week. Each week at the FESCo meeting, we'll ask
>>> members which reviews they've worked on in the past week.
>>>
>>> It won't be _mandatory_ -- 
>> [snipped] 
>>
>> As a rule of thumb it's ok, but it should not be mandatory. I think the
>> FESCo members are already having a lot of work to do and I'm not sure if
>> everybody has enough spare time for reviews.
> 
> Absolutely. Besides, if you do call it 'mandatory' you have to start
> defining what would happen if people don't comply, and the whole thing
> just gets silly.
> 
> I'm talking about a 'recommended practice', and just asking people each
> week which packages they've looked at. Nothing more.
> 
> And even though people are busy, it shouldn't actually take _that_ long
> to make progress on reviewing a single package, each week.
> 

http://tinyurl.com/4kt682
1,212 open Package Review bugs

I think Jason Tibbitts put up a wiki page with some ideas for getting
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Hans de Goede | 11 Oct 11:47

Re: Package review backlog.

John Poelstra wrote:
> David Woodhouse said the following on 10/10/2008 07:30 AM Pacific Time:
>> On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 15:33 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>>> Am Freitag, den 10.10.2008, 14:14 +0100 schrieb David Woodhouse:
>>>
>>>> I propose that each FESCo member should try to work on at least one
>>>> package review per week. Each week at the FESCo meeting, we'll ask
>>>> members which reviews they've worked on in the past week.
>>>>
>>>> It won't be _mandatory_ -- 
>>> [snipped]
>>> As a rule of thumb it's ok, but it should not be mandatory. I think the
>>> FESCo members are already having a lot of work to do and I'm not sure if
>>> everybody has enough spare time for reviews.
>>
>> Absolutely. Besides, if you do call it 'mandatory' you have to start
>> defining what would happen if people don't comply, and the whole thing
>> just gets silly.
>>
>> I'm talking about a 'recommended practice', and just asking people each
>> week which packages they've looked at. Nothing more.
>>
>> And even though people are busy, it shouldn't actually take _that_ long
>> to make progress on reviewing a single package, each week.
>>
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/4kt682
> 1,212 open Package Review bugs

Woa,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Patrice Dumas | 11 Oct 12:21
Favicon

Re: Package review backlog.

On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:47:01AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> John Poelstra wrote:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/4kt682
>> 1,212 open Package Review bugs
>
> Of those 1200 pachages awaiting review, 100 block FE_NEEDSPONSOR, so 1100 
> are normal reviews submitted by people which are already contributers! 

These numbers are partly misleading. Indeed many are merge reviews that
are... special, at least should not, in my opinion be counted like
other reviews since they are already in. And among the other many are in
progress and blocked by a change required somewhere, upstream, or in
other package or there is something not obvious in the package that
needs some work, it is not necessarily a lack of reviewers. In some way
having many active review bugs may be good if it is because the review
is serious and allow to have quality packages in only. So, in my opinion
the raw numbers don't mean a lot, what would be meaningful, would be, in
my opinion, the ratio of review requests that nobody had a look at over
the number of fedora contributors.

--
Pat

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
John Poelstra | 13 Oct 18:58
Favicon

Re: Package review backlog.

Patrice Dumas said the following on 10/11/2008 03:21 AM Pacific Time:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:47:01AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> John Poelstra wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4kt682
>>> 1,212 open Package Review bugs
>> Of those 1200 pachages awaiting review, 100 block FE_NEEDSPONSOR, so 1100 
>> are normal reviews submitted by people which are already contributers! 
> 
> These numbers are partly misleading. Indeed many are merge reviews that
> are... special, at least should not, in my opinion be counted like
> other reviews since they are already in. And among the other many are in
> progress and blocked by a change required somewhere, upstream, or in
> other package or there is something not obvious in the package that
> needs some work, it is not necessarily a lack of reviewers. In some way
> having many active review bugs may be good if it is because the review
> is serious and allow to have quality packages in only. So, in my opinion
> the raw numbers don't mean a lot, what would be meaningful, would be, in
> my opinion, the ratio of review requests that nobody had a look at over
> the number of fedora contributors.
> 

I queried all open bugs for the "Package Review" component.

They are also a large part of the total of NEW rawhide bugs here: 
http://tinyurl.com/4cavl2

John

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Peter Robinson | 11 Oct 16:55

Re: Package review backlog.

>>>>> I propose that each FESCo member should try to work on at least one
>>>>> package review per week. Each week at the FESCo meeting, we'll ask
>>>>> members which reviews they've worked on in the past week.
>>>>>
>>>>> It won't be _mandatory_ --
>>>>
>>>> [snipped]
>>>> As a rule of thumb it's ok, but it should not be mandatory. I think the
>>>> FESCo members are already having a lot of work to do and I'm not sure if
>>>> everybody has enough spare time for reviews.
>>>
>>> Absolutely. Besides, if you do call it 'mandatory' you have to start
>>> defining what would happen if people don't comply, and the whole thing
>>> just gets silly.
>>>
>>> I'm talking about a 'recommended practice', and just asking people each
>>> week which packages they've looked at. Nothing more.
>>>
>>> And even though people are busy, it shouldn't actually take _that_ long
>>> to make progress on reviewing a single package, each week.
>>>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/4kt682
>> 1,212 open Package Review bugs
>
> Woa,
>
> Thats an amanzing number, I'll put in, or rather repeat, my 2 cents here.
> Fedora, like any opensource community, is all about give and take, about tit
> for tat.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Dodji Seketeli | 13 Oct 09:26

Re: Package review backlog.

Hans de Goede a écrit :

[...]

> I've submitted many, many new packages (100+ I guess) and I've *never* 
> had any problems in getting them reviewed.
> 
> Of those 1200 pachages awaiting review, 100 block FE_NEEDSPONSOR, so 
> 1100 are normal reviews submitted by people which are already 
> contributers!

[...]

> Lets say every contributer has on average 2 packages 
> waiting for review, then 2 have 550 contributers for whom the review 
> queue is a problem, if all of those 550 submitters would review only 2 
> packages, then the entire normal review queue is gone!

Yeah, but what about the 100 people who are not contributors yet, and 
who are willing to get in ? What can be done to speed up the reviews of 
their packages in practice ?

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jason L Tibbitts III | 13 Oct 16:55

Re: Package review backlog.

>>>>> "DS" == Dodji Seketeli <dodji <at> seketeli.org> writes:

DS> Yeah, but what about the 100 people who are not contributors yet,
DS> and who are willing to get in ? What can be done to speed up the
DS> reviews of their packages in practice ?

Lowering the barriers to sponsorship by not giving new contributors
access to every package has now been done; sponsorship should become
at least a bit easier now.

 - J<

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Dan Nicholson | 13 Oct 20:53

Re: Package review backlog.

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Dodji Seketeli <dodji <at> seketeli.org> wrote:
>
> Yeah, but what about the 100 people who are not contributors yet, and who
> are willing to get in ? What can be done to speed up the reviews of their
> packages in practice ?

Be a hero today! Review this RPM for a ridiculously simple perl module
that allows you to use SSL/TLS to your mail server with
git-send-email.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462818

--
Dan

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christoph Wickert | 11 Oct 15:25

Re: Package review backlog.

Am Freitag, den 10.10.2008, 20:22 -0700 schrieb John Poelstra:
> David Woodhouse said the following on 10/10/2008 07:30 AM Pacific Time:
> > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 15:33 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >> Am Freitag, den 10.10.2008, 14:14 +0100 schrieb David Woodhouse:
> >>
> >>> I propose that each FESCo member should try to work on at least one
> >>> package review per week. Each week at the FESCo meeting, we'll ask
> >>> members which reviews they've worked on in the past week.
> >>>
> >>> It won't be _mandatory_ -- 
> >> [snipped] 
> >>
> >> As a rule of thumb it's ok, but it should not be mandatory. I think the
> >> FESCo members are already having a lot of work to do and I'm not sure if
> >> everybody has enough spare time for reviews.
> > 
> > Absolutely. Besides, if you do call it 'mandatory' you have to start
> > defining what would happen if people don't comply, and the whole thing
> > just gets silly.
> > 
> > I'm talking about a 'recommended practice', and just asking people each
> > week which packages they've looked at. Nothing more.
> > 
> > And even though people are busy, it shouldn't actually take _that_ long
> > to make progress on reviewing a single package, each week.
> > 
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/4kt682
> 1,212 open Package Review bugs
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mamoru Tasaka | 11 Oct 16:18

Re: Package review backlog.

Christoph Wickert wrote, at 10/11/2008 10:25 PM +9:00:
> Am Freitag, den 10.10.2008, 20:22 -0700 schrieb John Poelstra:

>> http://tinyurl.com/4kt682
>> 1,212 open Package Review bugs
> 
> Thanks for putting up this link, but I think the number is misleading,
> because it includes a high number of reviews that are already assigned
> and/or have the flag set to "fedora‑review?" A lot of them are waiting
> for response from the review requester. AFAICS you searched for all
> reviews that are not yet closed, right?
> 
> But this reminds me of another problem, which is IMO more important:
> 
> Back to my problem: 
> I would have love to do more reviews, but I'm having a hard time trying
> to find suitable reviews. Now that we have the reviews with
> flags I don't even know how to search bugzilla, because I want to search
> only for reviews that don't have a flag set. How to achieve that? When I
> search for all review requests with
> 
>       * status=new
>       * flag is not equal to fedora-review?
>       * and
>       * flag is not equal to fedora-review+
> 
> Bugzilla returns "This list is too long for Red Hat Bugzilla's little
> mind..." What I'm I doing wrong?
> 
> Christoph
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christoph Wickert | 11 Oct 17:06

Re: Package review backlog.

Am Samstag, den 11.10.2008, 23:18 +0900 schrieb Mamoru Tasaka:
> Christoph Wickert wrote, at 10/11/2008 10:25 PM +9:00:
> > I would have love to do more reviews, but I'm having a hard time trying
> > to find suitable reviews. Now that we have the reviews with
> > flags I don't even know how to search bugzilla, because I want to search
> > only for reviews that don't have a flag set. How to achieve that? When I
> > search for all review requests with
> > 
> >       * status=new
> >       * flag is not equal to fedora-review?
> >       * and
> >       * flag is not equal to fedora-review+
> > 
> > Bugzilla returns "This list is too long for Red Hat Bugzilla's little
> > mind..." What I'm I doing wrong?
> > 
> > Christoph
> 
>