On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 11:19 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 29 December 2006 09:00, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > The decision went towards a proposed new rule: "the reviewer has to at > > least mention that he checked the license, if the sources match upstream > > and 5 other points he checked when approving a package". Dgilmore will > > post to f-e-l about this whole thing in more detail and start a public > > discussion before FESCo discusses this further. > > hrm, you must wear at least 5 pieces of flair... Seriously, a rule like this > just encourages folks to check 5 things only and move on. If rules were set > in place to make 5 specific things mandatory, that's all that will be > checked. Lets not give reviewers a shortcut out. I'd be more in favor of a > rule that just says "items checked need to be listed out in the review before > building of the package will be allowed". Vague enough as to not give > reviewers a shortcut. So, you should just copy and paste all of the guidelines into the review? :-) Because the fact that the package follows the guidelines is what is supposed to be checked, not just some subset. A much better check and balance is exactly what happened in this case; dgilmore saw something suspicious and held off on the branch request. The next step would be either just doing just sort of a quick review or asking someone else to do a quick pass with such a review... such random and spot checks of reviews will go a long way towards verification. Jeremy -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
