Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

[Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:10:53 +0200, SO (Stanislav) wrote:

> Quoting Michael Schwendt (2012-04-26 18:36:51)
> > So, what has been proposed before (years ago even) is for advanced
> > packagers (aka "provenpackagers" or experienced packagers) to lower the
> > hurdle and trust them more in that they know their stuff.  They would not
> > need to wait for somebody else (possibly a fresh packager) to
> > review'n'approve a package or just its licensing. It's considered
> > ridiculous by some that "senior packagers" still need approval for
> > even simple new packages or package renames.
> 
> I am a provenpackager and I would be *extremely* dissapointed if this
> came to become a reality. Package review is a good thing, no matter how
> skilled the packager is. I have packaged quite a few packages, mostly
> Java ones (65 to be exact) and I still make mistakes! Guidelines change,
> people miss things (such as bundling, licensing issues, wrong
> permissions, etc.). I will put it bluntly: getting rid of package
> reviews would be an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Package reviews would be _optional_ for provenpackagers, not mandatory
anymore. You could still open a review request and wait for a reviewer.
Especially for non-trivial packages.

The bottom half of your paragraph misses the point completely, btw.
We don't have a review process for packages _after_ package approval.
Mistakes happen, and it's possible that with any unattended version-
upgrade you would introduce mistakes. Does that imply you would want
mandatory reviews for every commit in git? No. Hopefully not. ;)

-- 
Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.3.2-8.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.00 0.01 0.05
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel