On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 11:39 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Saturday 30 December 2006 10:52, Axel Thimm wrote: > > So for checking whether your single-worded "APPROVED" is correct or > > not the whole work needs to be repeated instead of checking that you > > reviewed the mandatory items. Sorry, but that's nowhere near quality > > control. > > Just looking to see if the checklist was pasted isn't quality control either. > The only way to _actually_ check that things were reviewed is to do the > review yourself. A spot check. Anything less is trusting the reviewer did > the right thing, and if you're already doing that, what does it matter if > they just listed APPROVED or if they copy/pasted a long list of check items? I don't see how this is relevant. I don't see how a checklist of MUST items *couldn't* keep an honest person from missing a MUST item. If someone's intent on being actively dishonest, then we have a much greater problem than some half-assed package reviews slipping by.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
