On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 02:14:57PM -0600, Callum Lerwick wrote: > 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: It would be nice if such a template was officially embeded into the review process docs and was maintained to always reflect the latest review/guidelines requirements. > 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. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpUc7dyOV2af.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
