On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 11:34 +0200, Till Maas wrote: > On Fri October 3 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > However, one of my actual point is a bit different: Once one starts > > formulating such a "template", people will start to nit-pick and to > > argue on (missing) details (e.g. corner-cases) and in longer terms will > > start to demand for "laws", "regulations" and "forms". > > I guess we have different pictures about such a template. For me it would be > an itemized list, where each item is a summary of one guideline from all the > Guideline documents, maybe with an URL that links to the specific guideline. > The nit-picking should then only affect the normal guidelines. Let me put it differently: I am referring to certain particular people, of whom I find it very obious that they have no clue about what they are doing in reviews. > > Such demands will typically originate from people who don't actually > > understand why certain "guidelines" exist, but reduce "guidelines" to > > "formal bureaucratic regulations". > > I am one of these who do not lnow why certain guidelines exist, but this is > imho another problem, because it is not explained for most of the guidelines, > why they exist. Well, where is the problem? Restrict yourself to reviewing packages you understand and don't review packages you don't understand rsp. ask if you don't understand details. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
