On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:30:17 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > 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 ... Ouch. Deadlock. We're in a loop! When the reviewer is forced to include a commented mandatory incomplete checklist, this would require the reviewer to document all additional checks (among them things more important than what's in the checklist), too, for completeness. I hereby refuse to do that and will rather stop doing reviews completely. I do custom reviews and adapt to what is contained within a package, and more often than not that has helped in blocking crap. > > APPROVAL => all MUST items must have passed the check > > ... using the easy way out. No, there is no excuse if the approved package does not pass the checklist actually. > > > 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. Then it's pointless. > > 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". No, thank you. This is a big turn-off criterion for me. When I say "APPROVED", all that matters is whether anybody can point me to something I've missed. -- 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
