On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 17:57 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:33:44 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote: > > > > 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. I agree this would be extra work for the experienced packagers, but maybe we should have an exemption if they are a sponsor. /B -- Brian Pepple <bpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
