On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 11:33 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote: > On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 11:19 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > > 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. > > That sounds fine to me. The problem I had was reviewers just putting > 'APPROVED' in reviews, and not giving any information on what was > actually checked. But doing this either means that: a) Every review ends up being a copy of the guidelines and thus impossible to easily find the concerns of the reviewers b) Only some of the things which are checked get listed (at which point, we're right back where we are now... they said they checked foo, does that mean they checked bar?) c) Some bits of the guidelines are skipped in favor of just having a few items checked to "appease" 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
