>>>>> "MS" == Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> writes: MS> Any more formalism and bureaucracy will drive away reviewers. I MS> think we've agreed on that long ago. I'm surprised this topic has MS> returned. I as well, and I objected to this when it came up. I prefer a much simpler rule: please just tell us what you checked. As the review is permanently kept as evidence, reviewers should not leave things open to question. If you looked at something and found it OK, please indicate that instead of asking others to assume that you checked something and found it not worth commenting on. When reviewing 30 nearly identical Perl or PHP modules, occasionally you just want to say that the last one is just like the other 29, and I think it's feasible to do so. Additional bizarre rules don't really help much. I try to actually read all of the review traffic and point out places where I think things are deficient, but lately I haven't had the time. - J< -- 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
