On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 23:30:09 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > 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, What is the purpose of listing them in the review then? APPROVAL => all MUST items must have passed the check > and listing them in the review with a > check after them signals that you indeed are following the very basic > QA requirements. How do you know whether it's not just a single cut'n'paste job? The only interesting point is when after approval it turns out that the reviewer has NOT checked something and has NOT noticed one or more flaws that should have been noticed when processing the MUST items. Everything else is added bureaucracy from the Fedora playground. Ages ago we've had GPG signed bugzilla comments at fedora.us including the MD5 fingerprint of the reviewed src.rpm, so a review would be tied to a specific src.rpm. -- 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
