On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 12:08:16AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > 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? Ensuring that reviewers get in touch with the checklist instead of ... > APPROVAL => all MUST items must have passed the check ... using the easy way out. > > 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? I don't, and I know that even less when there's a one-liner "APPROVED" in the bugzilla entry. > 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. Better be proactive than finding whom to blame afterwards: Forcing the reviewer to interact with the checklist make it less likely for missed items especially when compared to "wild reviews". -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpZAiXrm36tF.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
