On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:39:31 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote: > > > > That infamous "QA checklist" is misunderstood frequently. It is hopelessly > > > incomplete. If you go through it step by step upon reviewing a package, > > > you can miss many other issues. If, however, the checklist were extended, > > > it would grow *a lot* and increase the hurdle to QA significantly. The > > > list in its current form just gives inspiration on what might be worth > > > examining. > > > > Ok, then please remove the non mandatory steps from it, if you want to > > remove the hurdle. It would have made this discussion non-existing ;) > > What would that change? We've talked about it, criticism has been noted, > and as I've tried to make clear, the checklist should not be > misunderstood. There is no silver bullet. One could create a different > checklist for every different type of package. The biggest hurdle to QA is > lack of common sense. I don't want to spend a lot of time editing > documentation in the Wiki to please a single individual (read "you") who > runs his own independent repository and doesn't really care. I'd rather > like to know how to lower the hurdle for other people who would like to > help, but who still don't know where to start. And that would mean that > they start talking about any problems they see. I guess I don't understand anything you're saying in the context of this discussion and I'm leaving it for what it was. If the biggest hurdle to QA is lack of common sense I don't see why a non-mandatory rule is still in there. Especially if you can't do something wrong when both of 2 choices are allowed. Do you still wonder why I care less ? -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
