Hi Packagers,
A lot of package reviewers already seem to have their own templates for doing package reviews, which is fine and well. I was thinking that this could benefit more reviewers, specially those who review less frequently or are newer to reviewing, if a link to a reference review template was added to Packaging/ReviewGuidelines that anyone could make use of.
I could attach mine, which is just a trimmed version of the must and should items on the above page with "[]" checkboxes but maybe some of the top reviewer may have something better or more polished. Anyway if noone else wants to "throw the first stone" I could open a draft wiki page where we can flesh it out.
Jens
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 00:35 -0400, Jens Petersen wrote:
Hi Packagers,
A lot of package reviewers already seem to have their own templates for doing package reviews, which is fine and well. I was thinking that this could benefit more reviewers, specially those who review less frequently or are newer to reviewing, if a link to a reference review template was added to Packaging/ReviewGuidelines that anyone could make use of.
I could attach mine, which is just a trimmed version of the must and should items on the above page with "[]" checkboxes but maybe some of the top reviewer may have something better or more polished. Anyway if noone else wants to "throw the first stone" I could open a draft wiki page where we can flesh it out.
Do we really need this? I'd rather see reviewers, who "switch on their brains" instead of watching people who are mechanically filling out forms.
I feel, we already have too many of the latter category in Fedora. Unfortunately, it's them who tend to be active.
Ralf
On Fri October 3 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Do we really need this? I'd rather see reviewers, who "switch on their brains" instead of watching people who are mechanically filling out forms.
I made the experience, that a review template helps to not forget to check something, especially when one does not review packages very often. It also helps a little to keep track of what was already checked in reviews that take longer than some days to complete. In case you think the review guidelines demand too many checks, then they should be adjusted.
Regards, Till
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 10:04 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri October 3 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Do we really need this? I'd rather see reviewers, who "switch on their brains" instead of watching people who are mechanically filling out forms.
I made the experience, that a review template helps to not forget to check something, especially when one does not review packages very often. It also helps a little to keep track of what was already checked in reviews that take longer than some days to complete. In case you think the review guidelines demand too many checks, then they should be adjusted.
Well, yes, I think the guidelines have grown fat and bloated.
However, one of my actual point is a bit different: Once one starts formulating such a "template", people will start to nit-pick and to argue on (missing) details (e.g. corner-cases) and in longer terms will start to demand for "laws", "regulations" and "forms".
Such demands will typically originate from people who don't actually understand why certain "guidelines" exist, but reduce "guidelines" to "formal bureaucratic regulations".
Ralf
On Fri October 3 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
However, one of my actual point is a bit different: Once one starts formulating such a "template", people will start to nit-pick and to argue on (missing) details (e.g. corner-cases) and in longer terms will start to demand for "laws", "regulations" and "forms".
I guess we have different pictures about such a template. For me it would be an itemized list, where each item is a summary of one guideline from all the Guideline documents, maybe with an URL that links to the specific guideline. The nit-picking should then only affect the normal guidelines.
Such demands will typically originate from people who don't actually understand why certain "guidelines" exist, but reduce "guidelines" to "formal bureaucratic regulations".
I am one of these who do not lnow why certain guidelines exist, but this is imho another problem, because it is not explained for most of the guidelines, why they exist. Iirc someone already suggested that each guideline should be explained, but I guess the one who know the reasons, do not have the time to explain them.
Regards, Till
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 11:34 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri October 3 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
However, one of my actual point is a bit different: Once one starts formulating such a "template", people will start to nit-pick and to argue on (missing) details (e.g. corner-cases) and in longer terms will start to demand for "laws", "regulations" and "forms".
I guess we have different pictures about such a template. For me it would be an itemized list, where each item is a summary of one guideline from all the Guideline documents, maybe with an URL that links to the specific guideline. The nit-picking should then only affect the normal guidelines.
Let me put it differently: I am referring to certain particular people, of whom I find it very obious that they have no clue about what they are doing in reviews.
Such demands will typically originate from people who don't actually understand why certain "guidelines" exist, but reduce "guidelines" to "formal bureaucratic regulations".
I am one of these who do not lnow why certain guidelines exist, but this is imho another problem, because it is not explained for most of the guidelines, why they exist.
Well, where is the problem?
Restrict yourself to reviewing packages you understand and don't review packages you don't understand rsp. ask if you don't understand details.
Ralf
On Friday, 03 October 2008 at 11:48, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 11:34 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri October 3 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
However, one of my actual point is a bit different: Once one starts formulating such a "template", people will start to nit-pick and to argue on (missing) details (e.g. corner-cases) and in longer terms will start to demand for "laws", "regulations" and "forms".
I guess we have different pictures about such a template. For me it would be an itemized list, where each item is a summary of one guideline from all the Guideline documents, maybe with an URL that links to the specific guideline. The nit-picking should then only affect the normal guidelines.
Let me put it differently: I am referring to certain particular people, of whom I find it very obious that they have no clue about what they are doing in reviews.
Oh, how I hate such vague accusations. Ralf! Please tell us exactly who you're referring to and what *exactly* makes you think they have no clue.
Regards, R.
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 12:49:17PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Oh, how I hate such vague accusations. Ralf! Please tell us exactly who you're referring to and what *exactly* makes you think they have no clue.
I have the same feeling than Ralf, some reviewer just do superficial reviewing without really looking at the relevant details. I won't tell names. I also think that it was much less the case in the past, say, roughly in the extras days.
That being said, this is not really relevant to the issue here, I mean, template or not this issue will remain. And I think that I was in the category of the people who 'have no clue' when I did my first packages...
Maybe the sponsor should look over sponsoree shoulder for some time until the packager is knowledgable enough about packaging that he can do reviews with an understanding of what he is doing, and not applying some cookbook recipes (like look at rpmlint and it's done).
This is not an easy issue, though, especially since many veteran packagers from the beginning of fedora extras don't seem to show a lot of activity these days in the reviews.
-- Pat
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 04:02:03PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 12:49:17PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Oh, how I hate such vague accusations. Ralf! Please tell us exactly who you're referring to and what *exactly* makes you think they have no clue.
I have the same feeling than Ralf, some reviewer just do superficial reviewing without really looking at the relevant details. I won't tell names. I also think that it was much less the case in the past, say, roughly in the extras days.
I think you're looking at this from the wrong point of view. The current packaging review guidelines are really huge, and take a long time to wade though. Some of them really can be just reduced to bullet point checklist items, while others need intelligent thought on the part of the reviewer.
By providing a base template for package review, you make it easier to check off the really simple items, allowing more time to be focused on the ones without simple yes/no answers. If you want more in depth reviews you have to make the process more time efficient, otherwise people will inevitably just look at the superficial yes/no parts of the review.
Refusing to take the tedium out of the review process by not providing the base review templates, is just counter-productive because as the initial poster pointed out, people just create their own templates which may or not not actually match current guidelines. We should embrace the the defacto standard practice by providing official review templates so we can ensure they're always update, and provide incentives to get more indepth reviews from people.
Daniel
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 03:11:56PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I think you're looking at this from the wrong point of view. The current packaging review guidelines are really huge, and take a long time to wade though. Some of them really can be just reduced to bullet point checklist items, while others need intelligent thought on the part of the reviewer.
I can't see the point. And you are forgetting everything that is not in the guidelines and is still important.
By providing a base template for package review, you make it easier to check off the really simple items, allowing more time to be focused on the ones without simple yes/no answers.
But simple items are always simple to check off, template or not. And simple items that are simple for all packages aren't really existing. Simple items that allow for automation are already automated (in rpmlint).
If you want more in depth reviews you have to make the process more time efficient, otherwise people will inevitably just look at the superficial yes/no parts of the review.
I completly disagree. More in depth review is achieved if the review looks after quality and not time.
Time efficiency is achieved by automation, when possible, and also reducing the amount of guidelines, not by using templates.
Refusing to take the tedium out of the review process by not providing the base review templates, is just counter-productive because as the initial poster pointed out, people just create their own templates which may or not not actually match current guidelines. We should embrace the
It is not what the initial poster says. He, like other seasonned packagers has digested the guidelines and found the point that are the most problematic in his view.
the defacto standard practice by providing official review templates so we can ensure they're always update, and provide incentives to get more indepth reviews from people.
I don't think it will provide more incentives to do in-depth reviews. I honestly don't know what could achieve that, though. And maybe I am completly wrong and quick and dirty reviews are better than in-depth but costly ones.
-- Pat
On Fri October 3 2008, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 03:11:56PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I think you're looking at this from the wrong point of view. The current packaging review guidelines are really huge, and take a long time to wade though. Some of them really can be just reduced to bullet point checklist items, while others need intelligent thought on the part of the reviewer.
I can't see the point. And you are forgetting everything that is not in the guidelines and is still important.
Imho the mistake here is, that it is not documented in the guidelines. If there are secret important issues that need to be checked, where should the new reviewers come from?
By providing a base template for package review, you make it easier to check off the really simple items, allowing more time to be focused on the ones without simple yes/no answers.
But simple items are always simple to check off, template or not. And simple items that are simple for all packages aren't really existing. Simple items that allow for automation are already automated (in rpmlint).
Even simple items can be easily forgotten, if it is a PITA to find them all in the huge collection of Guidelines.
Regards, Till
On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 10:12:26PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
Imho the mistake here is, that it is not documented in the guidelines. If there are secret important issues that need to be checked, where should the new reviewers come from?
It is not secret, it is specific for a package or a class of packages. It comes from the brain. This is especially true for the integration issues that cannot all be in the guidelines. As a side note, if there was only things that are in the guidelines and can be put on a check list, packaging and reviewing packages would be very boring ;-)
Even simple items can be easily forgotten, if it is a PITA to find them all in the huge collection of Guidelines.
A template won't help, but removing things from the guidelines or arranging the guidelines to be easier to read.
-- Pat
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 03:11:56PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I think you're looking at this from the wrong point of view. The current packaging review guidelines are really huge, and take a long time to wade though. Some of them really can be just reduced to bullet point checklist items, while others need intelligent thought on the part of the reviewer.
It's actually worse than you state ... some of them are checked just fine by rpm/rpmlint, and so don't need to be checked at all.
eg: rpmlint checks the License field is valid and rpm checks that there are no duplicate files in %files, so both of those are unnecessary.
rpmlint could check a whole lot more too, eg. upstream URL exists, source matches tarball, all the pkgconfig stuff, all the ldconfig stuff, %doc includes license, license matches source, etc etc (not that I'm volunteering to do all that work).
Rich.
"RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones rjones@redhat.com writes:
RWMJ> eg: rpmlint checks the License field is valid and rpm checks RWMJ> that there are no duplicate files in %files, so both of those RWMJ> are unnecessary.
Well,
1) rpmlint doesn't check that the license field is correct; it only makes sure its syntax is valid. A human actually needs to look at what's in the tarball.
2) You actually have to look closely at the build output to notice the rpm complaint about there not being duplicates in %files, because it doesn't terminate the build or even complain that loudly. If a human doesn't do the check, the check doesn't get done.
The automated tools are just tools. Someone actually has to interpret the results.
- J<
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 03:11:56PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I think you're looking at this from the wrong point of view. The current packaging review guidelines are really huge, and take a long time to wade though. Some of them really can be just reduced to bullet point checklist items, while others need intelligent thought on the part of the reviewer.
It's actually worse than you state ... some of them are checked just fine by rpm/rpmlint, and so don't need to be checked at all.
eg: rpmlint checks the License field is valid and rpm checks that there are no duplicate files in %files, so both of those are unnecessary.
rpmlint could check a whole lot more too, eg. upstream URL exists, source matches tarball,
Things like the URL and source URL are problematic to automate as they require judgement. A human should be verifying that the URL is the canonical location for the project in question rather than a machine verifying that the URL exists.
I do agree with the general statement that more automation is good -- just be sure to understand what is being checked so you know if you're automating the correct thing.
-Toshio
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 12:49:17PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Oh, how I hate such vague accusations. Ralf! Please tell us exactly who you're referring to and what *exactly* makes you think they have no clue.
I have the same feeling than Ralf, some reviewer just do superficial reviewing without really looking at the relevant details. I won't tell names. I also think that it was much less the case in the past, say, roughly in the extras days.
Are there any specific deficiencies you find particularly troubling? I suppose you can't really post links if you don't want to name names, but could you characterize something in general terms?
Not looking to start a flamewar or witchhunt, just trying to make sure I understand the problem.
That being said, this is not really relevant to the issue here, I mean, template or not this issue will remain. And I think that I was in the category of the people who 'have no clue' when I did my first packages...
Maybe the sponsor should look over sponsoree shoulder for some time until the packager is knowledgable enough about packaging that he can do reviews with an understanding of what he is doing, and not applying some cookbook recipes (like look at rpmlint and it's done).
This is not an easy issue, though, especially since many veteran packagers from the beginning of fedora extras don't seem to show a lot of activity these days in the reviews.
-- Pat
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 09:17:17AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
Not looking to start a flamewar or witchhunt, just trying to make sure I understand the problem.
Sometime the reviewer don't check the correctness of packaging but only that it superficially complies with the guidelines. It always involves not reviewing in more depth than what the guidelines oblige (and correspondingly whining when an issue that is not in the guidelines is pointed at). And sometime it is only rpmlint output that is commented.
But this is another issue, really.
-- Pat
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 09:17 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 12:49:17PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Oh, how I hate such vague accusations. Ralf! Please tell us exactly who you're referring to and what *exactly* makes you think they have no clue.
I have the same feeling than Ralf, some reviewer just do superficial reviewing without really looking at the relevant details. I won't tell names. I also think that it was much less the case in the past, say, roughly in the extras days.
Are there any specific deficiencies you find particularly troubling?
Yes, low quality and/or carelessly packaged packages making it in to Fedora.
I suppose you can't really post links if you don't want to name names,
Right, I do not want to post names, here.
but could you characterize something in general terms?
This is difficult to answer - Let me try it this way:
The background behind reviews and the sponsorship model had been "quality of packaging". From this, the FPG had been developed, aiming at "best practices" to improve quality of packaging, quality of packages, seamless integration into the distro ... etc.
This basically works, except that this has attracted
* people who take the FPG as a "law" and are trying to make a career as "auxiliary/volunteer law enforcement guard/officer". For them, the "regulations" are the objective, not the packages nor the distro.
* "mere bureaucrats". People who need forms and regulations for everything, everywhere, but don't think about what they are doing. For then, "the forms" are the objective, not the packages nor the distro.
Note: I am not talking about diverging individual opinions or personal preferences during reviews, nor am I referring to "newcomer/newbie reviews". I am referring to people who mix up the actual purpose of the reviews with the review process itself.
That being said, this is not really relevant to the issue here, I mean, template or not this issue will remain. And I think that I was in the category of the people who 'have no clue' when I did my first packages...
Maybe the sponsor should look over sponsoree shoulder for some time until the packager is knowledgable enough about packaging that he can do reviews with an understanding of what he is doing, and not applying some cookbook recipes (like look at rpmlint and it's done).
This is not an easy issue, though, especially since many veteran packagers from the beginning of fedora extras don't seem to show a lot of activity these days in the reviews.
My reasons of not participating into reviews as much as I once did are:
* Fedora bureaucracy and Fedora infrastructure issues have reached an extend, maintaining my packages in Fedora consumes up all time I have available for contributions to Fedora => Not much time left for reviews.
* Most of the packages, which have been submitted in recent past, are mostly non-interesting to me. Most of the packages I am interested in are part of Fedora.
* My general interest in the Fedora project and the Fedora distro have decreased over all these years. Fedora once had been an exciting project, but the way things have evolved are gradually driving me away. => I unfroze activities, I had suspended due Fedora (e.g. contributing to 3rd party repos).
Ralf
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 12:49 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Friday, 03 October 2008 at 11:48, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 11:34 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri October 3 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
However, one of my actual point is a bit different: Once one starts formulating such a "template", people will start to nit-pick and to argue on (missing) details (e.g. corner-cases) and in longer terms will start to demand for "laws", "regulations" and "forms".
I guess we have different pictures about such a template. For me it would be an itemized list, where each item is a summary of one guideline from all the Guideline documents, maybe with an URL that links to the specific guideline. The nit-picking should then only affect the normal guidelines.
Let me put it differently: I am referring to certain particular people, of whom I find it very obious that they have no clue about what they are doing in reviews.
Oh, how I hate such vague accusations. Ralf! Please tell us exactly who you're referring to and what *exactly* makes you think they have no clue.
I do not intend to flame people and therefore will not mention any names here.
Ralf
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 12:35:38AM -0400, Jens Petersen wrote:
Hi Packagers,
A lot of package reviewers already seem to have their own templates for doing package reviews, which is fine and well. I was thinking that this could benefit more reviewers, specially those who review less frequently or are newer to reviewing, if a link to a reference review template was added to Packaging/ReviewGuidelines that anyone could make use of.
I could attach mine, which is just a trimmed version of the must and should items on the above page with "[]" checkboxes but maybe some of the top reviewer may have something better or more polished. Anyway if noone else wants to "throw the first stone" I could open a draft wiki page where we can flesh it out.
I don't think we need that. If you have items that are not on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines they could be added, but I don't think that a template would be more useful than the existing list, indeed it is up to the reviewer to pick what he thinks is important. Put it otherwise, growing his own list based on this page is, in my opinion, an important step in becoming reviewer, and a preexisting template could only hurt since the reviewer wouldn't make the effort to appropriate the guidelines.
-- Pat
On Fri October 3 2008, Patrice Dumas wrote:
I don't think we need that. If you have items that are not on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines they could be added, but I don't think that a template would be more
There are a lot of items that are in the Packaging Guidelines, Naming Guidelines, and the Packaging Guidelines for some special packages (python, java, perl, ...) that are not summarised in the Review Guidelines.
Regards, Till
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 10:23:29AM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri October 3 2008, Patrice Dumas wrote:
I don't think we need that. If you have items that are not on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines they could be added, but I don't think that a template would be more
There are a lot of items that are in the Packaging Guidelines, Naming Guidelines, and the Packaging Guidelines for some special packages (python, java, perl, ...) that are not summarised in the Review Guidelines.
Then what could be interesting is to have something lilke Review Guidelines for those languages, though only with the specific bits.
-- Pat
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Daniel P. Berrange -
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Jens-Ulrik Petersen -
Jon Ciesla -
Patrice Dumas -
Ralf Corsepius -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Till Maas -
Toshio Kuratomi