Dead horse of the week: Merge Reviews

F17 is coming in May.  F7 was 5 years ago.  But 5 years ago we merged Core into Extras.  To help make sure that Core packages conformed to Extras guidelines, we filed Merge Reviews.  As of this writing, 91 are still in status NEW.

I know some of the packages are intimidating; gcc, gdm, nautilus.  But have a look, and see if there’s one you might be able to work on.  Do a formal review just like you would a new package. Offer to commit any simple fixes to rawhide.  If you get permission but don’t have access, shout out on the -devel list or #fedora-devel for a ProvenPackager to help.

Search for component Package Review, status NEW, subject exact string Merge Review.

Thanks in advance.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Dead horse of the week: Merge Reviews

  1. Peter says:

    It would be useful to actually go through and review all of the bugs to see if they’re still relevant, I know I’ve updated 100s of packages to fix build issues on ARM or mainline build issues since F-14 and have long since stopped bothering checking BZ because it’s a slow and tedious to deal with. It would be useful to be able to use a cli to easily query to see if package X had bugs against it. Something like “fedpks list-bug-reports”

  2. limburgher says:

    Absolutely. There are probably some that are even orphaned/retired, or replaced. There might be a relevant script laying around, I’ll see what I can find.

  3. limburgher says:

    python-bugzilla’s bugzilla query –component= is a good start.

  4. rich says:

    gcc .. is there any value in a merge review for it? I would just close that bug and ones like it.

  5. limburgher says:

    I think there is. That way, at least if there are places that exceptions to the guidlelines need to be made, they can be documented. Take the kernel, for example. It’s srpm name doesn’t match upstream’s name. That’s a valid exception, IMHO. gcc almost certainly has valid exceptions, but they should be documented along with rationales so that we know whether future packages should or should not use them as precedent.

    • Kevin Kofler says:

      IMHO, the kernel package SHOULD be named “linux”, because that’s the kernel’s name. The OS is called GNU/Linux.

      • Frederik Hertzum says:

        The OS is called Fedora — which is a GNU/Linux based operating system. The only kernel for Fedora is Linux, which means kernel is just a good a name as linux is for that package.

      • limburgher says:

        Well, yes, but what if we wanted follow Debian in making a GNU/Hurd distro? Not that I’m advocating that, just playing devil’s advocate. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s