>> No one is really doubting that. But, it's all about *documenting* what >> you did (and what you didn't) in the review. That's the most important >> reason for the existence of a a review ticket at all. > > The most important reason for the existence of a a review ticket is to > make sure someone in a trusted group did review a package. If there is > any doubt about the quality of one review the checks should start from > the package that was effectively imported in rawhide, ***NOT*** what > the reviewer declared checking in the review ticket. > > In case of doubt the information in the review ticket is just as > likely to be flawed as the package itself, and in the end the package > we ship is the only thing that really matters. > > Long check-list cut and pastes where some tests are erroneously pasted > from another review with this other review value are not unknown of. >From the POV of a inexperienced packager, having this long list of checked items with remarks on the ones that don't pass is a great help. In fact, I learned much more on packaging during the review of my packages than when I created them. That's because when you're new, it can be really hard to understand what those items mean. But when the reviewer says: - this item: => FAIL because blahblahblah Then you think "oh, that's what this was supposed to mean ?". I'm not sure I made myself clear, but I do think that detailed reviews are necessary. This has nothing to do with the trust we have in packagers / sponsors, but with the submitter's trainship. Regards, ---------- Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) French Fedora Ambassador ---------- "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
