On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:36:13AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Saturday 30 December 2006 06:00, Axel Thimm wrote: > > Why does it have to be all or nothing? So you either just stamp off a > > package review with a terse aproval notice or have to write a book on > > it? Try to find a middle ground, which is posting a checklist and > > anything else you want to post. Other people have done this > > successfully, check their reviews. > > The checklist is just a condensed version of the guidelines, that will be > copied pasted. It is no more valuable than a 'APPROVED'. Anybody could > copy/paste the checklist, especially if there are items that don't apply > (python checks for a perl package). The only thing it would prove is that > they copied the most recent checklist. Don't forget that they have to actively fill the check list with values. It's like a pre-flight check. The pilot and co-pilot could just nod to each other and say "all good". Or they could have a check-mark after a given list of items to check. And that's what quality control is: You get a list of specs to check and return in the checklist with your signature underneath. If the bananas were rotten and you check-marked bananas as OK, you're fired. Whereas now you have the situation "What? pyo files are included now? Why should I know, I read the guidelines 3 months ago ..." -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpocy8CfxiY3.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
