On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 12:40:00PM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Saturday 30 December 2006 12:38, Axel Thimm wrote: > > If you do find a broken review item and you have a checklist where the > > reviewer explicitely marked this item as checked, then you know that > > he was wrong or extremely sloppy. When doing a simple APPROVED you > > can't tell whether he missed it for thinking he has memorized all > > guidelines. > > I don't buy this. "Extremely sloppy" could be that he just copied/pasted. It > is no more valuable than APPROVED. Either way the reviewer missed something > and needs to reeducate themselves. Pasting a checklist adds no value. Only > harm. Just let me comment that when I explored becoming a contributor to FE one of my most pleasant experiences when I checked the packages submission procedure back then was the high quality of reviewing done and the implied quality of the packages. Until this thread I wasn't aware of monolectical reviews and if this would become a habit it would decrease the quality of packages let through. Which I find a pity as one of the nicest parts of FE was the quality of packages. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp04Mohj9Cjz.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
