Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"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.
However, the issues to be checked is in fact... quite a lot,
isn't it?
If I have to list all items I have checked, it means that listing
items in ReviewGuidelines is not sufficient.
In fact ReviewGuidelines says that "The package must
meet the Packaging Guidelines" and
Packaging Guildlines also has... many check points!!
There are many cases that original spec files do not meet
the demand of Packaging Guidelines. And.. even in that case
I saw some cases that the review commented
"* This package meets the Package Guideines" as if all the
items in Package Guidelines are checked (I don't intend
to criticize anyone by this statement) and I had to
re-review the package quickly.
And.. in (not a few) case, do I have to list all items
like scriptlets, python issues.... so on? In fact I was
rather confused when I received a mail with many check lists
and I had to ask "So, what is blocking this bug?"
I think only mentioning "these issues are bad. Please fix!!"
is enough.
Mamoru Tasaka
--
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
