Re: Package review template
Thanks to everyone for pointing me scripts and other templates. I will
take a look at them and it will help me figure out a good starting
point.
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
I'd like to see links to packaging guidelines for each point (or at
least for non-obvious ones). It's helpful for the both parties to know
why they have to fix things.
That's a good idea. I don't know how to integrate them and at the same
time don't make the template too noisy. I will try to work on that one
because I think that would come handy for new reviewers.
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Garrett Holmstrom gho...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
[ ] SourceX is a working URL.
[ ] SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[ ] Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ] %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ] Latest version is packaged.
Where do these come from? I understand why they're useful and all, but
I'm not sure what guidelines recommend them.
They come from other templates I used to build this one. It is
possible that not every checks are correct for the moment on my review
template. The checklist need to be validated against a current version
of the guideline to be sure everything is OK. But, in the end, I would
also like to have a section that describe best practices that, while
not in the guideline directly, should be good to conform to.
Thanks a lot for the feedback!
--
Jean-Francois Saucier (djf_jeff)
GPG key : 0xA9E6E953
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Package review template
On 11/02/2010 01:35 PM, Jean-Francois Saucier wrote: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com wrote: I'd like to see links to packaging guidelines for each point (or at least for non-obvious ones). It's helpful for the both parties to know why they have to fix things. That's a good idea. I don't know how to integrate them and at the same time don't make the template too noisy. I will try to work on that one because I think that would come handy for new reviewers. What we did is we have references[1]. They seem to work fairly well and they are not too noisy IMO. YMMV of course. [1] Like this -- Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno PGP: 71A1677C Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Package review template
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com wrote: What we did is we have references[1]. They seem to work fairly well and they are not too noisy IMO. YMMV of course. Yes, maybe that would do the trick if there are not too many references in the template. I will try to work something out and update my wiki with the result. Thanks! -- Jean-Francois Saucier (djf_jeff) GPG key : 0xA9E6E953 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Package review template
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 08:35:41AM -0400, Jean-Francois Saucier wrote: Thanks to everyone for pointing me scripts and other templates. I will take a look at them and it will help me figure out a good starting point. All templates I know are linked here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers/Review_Template On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com wrote: I'd like to see links to packaging guidelines for each point (or at least for non-obvious ones). It's helpful for the both parties to know why they have to fix things. That's a good idea. I don't know how to integrate them and at the same time don't make the template too noisy. I will try to work on that one because I think that would come handy for new reviewers. I just write all notes / URL pointers next to a checklist item and remove it during the review if the item passes. This also allows me to easily read the guidelines if I am not sure about something: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Till/Package_Review_Checklist Regards Till pgpMHdBJp3QpL.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Package review template
Hi everyone, I just put my package review template on my wiki space at : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jfsaucier/Review_Template My template is simply a collection based on other's already existing template. What I did is I tried to put missing checks and sort them in an order that should go well when doing a review. My goal here is to try to produce a good review template to publicize and help people doing package review. If you can help growing my review template checklist or think of something to improve it, that would be really helpful. Also, if you spot any errors or have any comment, I will be happy to receive them. I plan to put up some scripts to automate part of the review process as soon as I have the time to finish them. Thank you! -- Jean-Francois Saucier (djf_jeff) GPG key : 0xA9E6E953 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Package review template
On 11/01/2010 03:32 PM, Jean-Francois Saucier wrote: Hi everyone, I just put my package review template on my wiki space at : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jfsaucier/Review_Template I created something similar specifically for Java reviews with Java SIG members improving it bit by bit: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Java_review_template My template is simply a collection based on other's already existing template. What I did is I tried to put missing checks and sort them in an order that should go well when doing a review. From the looks of it, I'd say we used the same base :-) My goal here is to try to produce a good review template to publicize and help people doing package review. If you can help growing my review template checklist or think of something to improve it, that would be really helpful. Also, if you spot any errors or have any comment, I will be happy to receive them. I'd like to see links to packaging guidelines for each point (or at least for non-obvious ones). It's helpful for the both parties to know why they have to fix things. I plan to put up some scripts to automate part of the review process as soon as I have the time to finish them. That would be great. -- Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno PGP: 71A1677C Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Package review template
I plan to put up some scripts to automate part of the review process as soon as I have the time to finish them. Great idea. I hacked a little script some time ago. It may be a little outdated now, non optimally designed, but maybe something could be reused in your project: http://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/pmreview Jaroslav -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Package review template
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 15:58 +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: I plan to put up some scripts to automate part of the review process as soon as I have the time to finish them. Some time ago I put this together: http://project.pingoured.fr/reviewHelper/ The idea here is of course not to do the review but to help at doing it by automating what can be. This version covers I think most of R's packaging features. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Package review template
On 11/1/2010 9:32, Jean-Francois Saucier wrote:
I just put my package review template on my wiki space at :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jfsaucier/Review_Template
[ ] SourceX is a working URL.
[ ] SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[ ] Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ] %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ] Latest version is packaged.
Where do these come from? I understand why they're useful and all, but
I'm not sure what guidelines recommend them.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
