On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 11:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Ville =?utf-8?q?Skytt=C3=A4?= <ville.skytta@xxxxxx> writes: > > On Friday 29 December 2006 16:00, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> The decision went towards a proposed new rule: "the reviewer has to at > >> least mention that he checked the license, if the sources match upstream > >> and 5 other points he checked when approving a package". > > > I don't think this makes much sense. How many points does the one then > > subsequently reviewing that the package was reviewed properly have to add? > > I agree that this sounds like pointless pedantry. It would be > reasonable to list all these things in the guidelines for reviewers, > if they aren't already. But requiring reviewers to (in effect) > copy-and-paste the guidelines in every approval message is a waste of > storage space and readers' time. On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 17:10 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: >Any more formalism and bureaucracy will drive away reviewers. I think > we've agreed on that long ago. I'm surprised this topic has returned. I... am absolutely astounded by all this. For doing reviews, I keep this template in a Tomboy note: MUST items: - rpmlint: - Package name: - Spec name: - Meets packaging guidelines: - License: - Spec in American English: - Spec legible: - Sources match upstream: - Builds: - BuildRequires: - Locales: - ldconfig: - Relocation: - Directory ownership: - %files: - %clean: - Macros: - Code vs. Content: - Documentation: - devel package: - .desktop file: SHOULD: - Includes license text: - Mock build: - Builds on all archs: - Package functional: - Scriptlets: - Subpackages: Which follows the review guidelines pretty closely. When I finalize a review, I just copy and paste this template into a new note, go down the ReviewGuidelines list, and type in an "Ok" or a "NEEDSWORK" for each one. If the time required to copy and paste and type some OK's would add significantly to your workload, I dare say you aren't putting in adequate time, thought and effort into your reviews.
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
