On 12/29/2006 10:14 PM, 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:
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.
How about Spot's "cheat" sheet (
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SpotsReviewCheatSheet?highlight=%28cheat%29
) ?
--
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
