Hi. I'd like to be able to sponser people who have passed package review for new projects or who are upstream maintainers for a project and want to become a package maintainer for the project in Fedora.
A few packages I maintain: - http://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kompose - http://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ignition - http://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vagrant-sshfs
A few packages I co-maintain: - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ostree - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpm-ostree - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-productimg-cloud (dead package now) - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-productimg-atomic (dead package now)
https://src.fedoraproject.org/user/dustymabe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=Package%20Review&email1=dustymabe&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&list_id=7905682&query_format=advanced
Hmmm, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor#Becoming_a_Fedora_Package_Collection_Sponsor lists as a requirement "Have done five high quality, nontrivial package reviews", but the query above only finds 3 reviews, and they are all similar golang packages too.
-1 on formal reasons. Please do some more reviews!
I wasn't a sponsor so even though I have done more reviews I wasn't assigned formally to the code review. Some examples:
I've also managed a bunch of rpms in previous employment experience but that is not something I have public links for.
+1 from me, I think Dusty knows packaging and could be a very good sponsor for new folks.
That said, others may not have enough info to say that, so perhaps you would want to do some more complex reviews and resubmit when people have more data to look at?
One down, one to go!
Hmmm, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor#Becoming_a_Fedora_Package_Collection_Sponsor lists as a requirement "Have done five high quality, nontrivial package reviews", but the query above only finds 3 reviews, and they are all similar golang packages too. One down, one to go! https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665480
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665480
That package should not have been accepted "as is". The packager should have unbundled all the deps and use the new Go packaging method (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging), not the old standard.
Also feel free to beta test the Python 3 rewrite of fedora-review and report back to us for your next reviews!
https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/pull-request/312
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/eclipseo/fedora-review
this was mostly copy paste form FedoraReview with empty [ ]s and broken checks, partially reviewed by Neal and should not have been approved as is, as said by @eclipseo.
[ ]
I'm sorry, but I'd not this a high quality review at all.
Consider me -1 as well.
Dusty, maybe actually do more reviews and reapply later? It has been 7 months since the request and you've been able to link one review.
Feel free to talk to me if you need to sponsor somebody, I'll gladly help.
-1. I agree with @zbyszek and @churchyard - you should complete more non-trivial, high-quality reviews.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665480 this was mostly copy paste form FedoraReview with empty [ ]s and broken checks, partially reviewed by Neal and should not have been approved as is, as said by @eclipseo. I'm sorry, but I'd not this a high quality review at all.
this was mostly copy paste form FedoraReview with empty [ ]s and broken checks, partially reviewed by Neal and should not have been approved as is, as said by @eclipseo. I'm sorry, but I'd not this a high quality review at all.
I don't quite understand. My first comment was exactly the copy/paste output from the review tool. My 2nd comment went through each item and added input. I was legitimately trying to do a high quality review. Sponsorship aside, if it is this hard for someone like me to do a high quality review then the whole system is fundamentally broken. It makes me want to never try again.
Metadata Update from @dustymabe: - Issue close_status updated to: declined - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Hmmm, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor#Becoming_a_Fedora_Package_Collection_Sponsor lists as a requirement "Have done five high quality, nontrivial package reviews", but the query above only finds 3 reviews, and they are all similar golang packages too. One down, one to go! https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665480 That package should not have been accepted "as is". The packager should have unbundled all the deps and use the new Go packaging method (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging), not the old standard.
This review was done with the understanding that this package also needs to work on RHEL 7. At the time (and I think even now) the new style does not work there.
+1 from me, I think Dusty knows packaging well and is sensible when working, he would be a very good sponsor for new folks that he helps mentor today in different realms like CoreOS
I don't quite understand. My first comment was exactly the copy/paste output from the review tool. My 2nd comment went through each item and added input. I was legitimately trying to do a high quality review.
That was hard to understand. It seemed like copy pasting stuff from FedoraReview without actually understanding what it means. Sorry if that is not what this was. In that case, scratch my comment about this particular review, but I still think you should do more reviews before applying as a sponsor.
the whole system is fundamentally broken
Maybe it is. Maybe it's just using a tool that wasn't updated in years to do the review. Note that using FedoraReview is not part of the process.
That was hard to understand. It seemed like copy pasting stuff from FedoraReview without actually understanding what it means. Sorry if that is not what this was. In that case, scratch my comment about this particular review,
The reason I did it that way was so that I could show the exact output that the review tool gave me and then add "reply" comments to it (i.e. the purple formatting for previous text and black text for my "reply"). This lets you clearly see my line of thought given the review tool output, which I think is the most transparent way to do a review and also allowed me to ask questions that I didn't know the answer to to other packagers who did. Otherwise it could just be me waving a wand and arbitrarily deciding if the package complies or not.
but I still think you should do more reviews before applying as a sponsor.
That's reasonable. I wasn't demanding to be approved as sponser. I was just reporting progress from a while back when zbyszek asked me to do 2 more reviews. Maybe I need to do more than two, that's fine too.
the whole system is fundamentally broken Maybe it is. Maybe it's just using a tool that wasn't updated in years to do the review. Note that using FedoraReview is not part of the process.
Yeah I was referring more to all the rules that make it complicated. I actually think without Fedora Review tool there would be no way I'd get it right. I'm definitely happy to have the tool.
Login to comment on this ticket.