On Saturday 30 December 2006 13:15, Axel Thimm wrote: > Well, in the same hyperbolic nature an "APPROVED" only says that a > person hit eight characters on his keyboard in the proper sequence. > > We should stop assuming the worse from the reviewers and just guide > them to do their review properly. And even if you do assume bad > reviewer then the checklisting is the way to find what they missed and > why. > > Let's try another approach: Other than the people having written the > review guidelines no one has memorized the list (probably the authors > didn't either) and will have to check the MUSTs somewhere, be it in > the wiki or his personal notes. If he is going to check the items why > not publicly in the bugzilla? It's zero effort in addition, unless the > reviewer didn't check the MUSTs at all, and that would be bad and > worth catching. Having a checklist is fine, forcing reviewers to paste it into a review bug purely so that somebody could have a warm and fuzzy feeling that the review was actually done is silly. So sure, maintain a condensed checklist of the musts/shoulds. Review guidelines point to this. Forcing it to be pasted into bugs, not so much. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpi3GjPRv0Aw.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
