On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 12:26 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> What you're catching by doing this forced delay is >> rushed reviews or laziness on the part of two people. > > Also *ignorance*, in the case of legally-not-allowed things. And it We have guidelines covering that. I don't really find it acceptable for a packager to be ignorant of it, and definitely not the reviewer. Certainly not the sponsors of the packager and reviewers. If our guidelines are sufficiently long or confusing enough that we still have people ignorant of this, then it highlights a problem with our guidelines. > also allows the folks doing the package reviews to look for patterns > emerging (like a single packager continually submitting non-suitable > things, or a reviewer continually doing shoddy reviews) which can be > then be dealt with appropriately. Taking your follow up of "folks doing the SCM requests" into account, I don't think that's what they signed up for? That's the job of a sponsor. However, you're just making cases for the easy to catch things and didn't address my point of 0 after-the-fact, on-going reviews taking place. If we are SO concerned with this up front, why are we completely unconcerned with it once a package is in? If we have problems with our guidelines, sponsor process, and continuation of both of those then lets fix those. Don't make SCM admins accountable for it. That doesn't make sense and I simply don't agree that forcing additional human delay here is worthwhile when it could be automated. josh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
