On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 06:08:23PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:52:22 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > Again all or nothing. Just do the checklist in the bugzilla, that does > > not have to be followed up by a book on your methology. You try to > > bundle that in order to try to demonstrate that check lists are bad, > > but the bundling is wrong to start with. > > I won't use such checklists anymore. Period. > > > > > Thanks for putting efforts into allowing good packages to > > > > evolve, but any custom or packaging habits controlled reviewes > > > > need to be on top of the base checklist. > > > > > > Another loop. > > > > Anything that disagrees with your opinion isn't neccessary a loop. > > You misunderstand so many things and in return try to use smart > rhetoric And you're losing the etiquette. > > > There really is only one way to verify a review, and that is to do > > > an own review of the same package. Do it! Find sloppy reviews, where > > > serious problems have slipped through, and then give reason to put > > > an eye on reviewers. > > > > I can check a review on its validity only if there is one to start with. > > I feel so sleepy... Have a pleasent sleep then. > Not at all. No further comment, since "malicious cut and paste" is nothing > I've referred to. You imply that the reviewer will just cut'n'paste the list w/o really checking the items, or not? If you don't then what's all the worry about? Do you have a problem if the reviewer pastes in an empty list of requirements he needs to check and ACK or NACK them? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp8Cl2AAuSCL.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
