On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 10:24:02PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:14:57 -0600, Callum Lerwick wrote: > > > I... am absolutely astounded by all this. For doing reviews, I keep this > > template in a Tomboy note: > > -snip- > > > 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. > > Wrong way of thinking to begin with. > > It would be wrong for me to reduce my way of reviewing packages > painstakingly to such a short'n'static list of MUST/SHOULD items. I don't think Callum suggests you to reduce to only these items on the checklist, it should be considered the basic items to check. After all they are called a MUST for a reason, e.g. supposedly *every review* has checked the MUST items, and listing them in the review with a check after them signals that you indeed are following the very basic QA requirements. And speaking of QA - QA is defined by fulfilling a given set of specifications and the MUSTs in guidelines and review process documents are providing these specifications. Sure, these can be better streamlined and perhaps different checklists could emerge for different classes of packages and make life easier. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpGgv64Rnb7G.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
