Re: rpmfusion review process
On 06/13/2014 08:48 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Sex, 2014-06-13 at 14:41 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> In
> particular, it's hard for me and Nicolas to find an agreement since
> we
> have a different view of our roles.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152#c57
Nicolas, has arrived late for review, undoubtedly, could we think that
review is not approved yet (was approved by Richard) , and Nicolas is
the reviewer master ? .
I suppose we could... but then this should be documented. And then
again, who has really the authority to update the process docs?
But if there should be some kind of "super-review" or whatever then we
need to formalize this so the submitter knows what's going on instead of
waiting for a seemingly overloaded cvssync administrator. Which is what
I first did, probably for a too long time. Note that this would make the
rpmfusion review process more complicated than Fedora's where there is
no further review actions once the package is approved, only
administrative tasks.
One alternative would be to say that also on rpmfusion the cvssync task
is an administrative task, not a "super-review" or so. To add a safety
net we could just state that anyone unhappy with a package (new or old)
could bring this to this list, effectively making the list take same
role as FPC/FESCO. IMHO, this would align the rpmfusion review process
better with Fedora's.
Of course, this only applies when there is a disagreement. Most remarks
are normally welcome be it under or after the review.
For me thing is , make sense what Nicolas ask ? or you don't
agree ? ,
Well, obviously we have a disagreement... I have tried to explain my
position in comment 58, which still is waiting for some kind of feedback.
if first, is simple please consider that review is not ended, if
second,
"should we decide on some mechanism which is similar to FPC/FESCO " is
this list,
Indeed.
Cheers!
--alec