KDE Review: Hash-o-Matic

[Thiago Masato Costa Sueto]

Hi, thanks for CCing me, Justin.

I took a look at the wiki page history, at past mailing list discussions
about KDE Review, and at the issues on Invent tagged with KDE Review, and I
see three things:

* The majority of new projects since 2020 up until this year did not have
an issue for tracking the KDE Review checklist at all, despite the
checklist existing for more than that
* The wiki is indeed ambiguous about when the checklist needs to be filled
in
* It's not really well defined who actually gets to check items in the
checklist, both allowing the author and not allowing the author were common
occurrences

Personally, I think it is fine for the checklist to be filled by the
original author too. Some checkboxes do not apply to all cases (we could
make this clearer), and the review is supposed to be about having
developers address issues in a project before it becomes part of KDE. We
just need to have a final check be done by the reviewers before the project
passes the review so that there's nothing missing. The important thing is
that it the issues are addressed.

>From what I've seen in the mailing list, the checklist ends up being part
of the review whether the actual checklist issue exists (Invent process) or
not (mailing list process). Requiring the checklist to be filled before
sending to the mailing list is probably too much and only works if the
developer is already familiar with REUSE, Docbook, Gitlab CI, Appstream,
Localization, etc. It makes more sense to me to have the checklist be
filled gradually during the KDE Review, and by the end of the review most
or all checkboxes should be ticked. Or is it expected that by the end of an
Incubation but before the KDE Review takes place the project developer
should already be familiar with all these?

On the matter of the checkboxes being less optimal, we could just remove
the ambiguities in the docs and make it a guideline that the developer,
when creating an issue for KDE Review, should start the issue with all
checkboxes blank so the activity history shows up properly and everyone
knows who ticked what.

Cheers,
Thiago

Em seg., 2 de out. de 2023 às 22:31, Justin Zobel <justin.zobel at gmail.com>
escreveu:

> I think it's clear we need some sort of process documentation for KDE
> Review, who is expected to do what, and in which order.
>
> I've  cc'd Thiago on this as they are KDE's documentation writer, let's
> see if we can get something together.
>
> On 3/10/23 07:42, Carl Schwan wrote:
> > On Monday, 2 October 2023 21:53:06 CEST Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> >> This method of review is really sub-optiomal.
> >>
> >> Who checked all those marks? There's no way to know.
> >>
> >> Was it someone expert in the area?
> >>
> >> Was it someone that knows has no idea what the checks mean?
> >>
> >> Or was it the submitter of review? If it's the submitter for review it's
> >> worthless (nothing against Carl, you're great) but one doesn't review
> their
> >> own MRs, so one shouldn't probably review this kind of checks either.
> > I now unchecked all the checkmarks. For me I see these checkmarks as
> stuff I
> > need to do before sending a mail to kde-core-devel, as it is just the
> basic
> > stuff and it doesn't make sense to request a review if this is not done.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Carl
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20231005/cac5cdd0/attachment.htm>