On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:33:44 -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. It doesn't make sense to create detailed lists. A single "APPROVED" is fine. I've done that multiple times myself, because everything else is too time-consuming. Even my old-style reviews have been inconsistent and misleading to the silent observer, because they never mentioned everything I had checked. I can catch many packaging bugs and pitfalls with the blink of an eye. And at the same speed it is possible to verify many things one must not find in a spec. You don't want to slow-down the possibly experienced reviever and force him to create detailed lists. -- 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
