On Fri October 3 2008, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 03:11:56PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > I think you're looking at this from the wrong point of view. The current > > packaging review guidelines are really huge, and take a long time to > > wade though. Some of them really can be just reduced to bullet point > > checklist items, while others need intelligent thought on the part of > > the reviewer. > > I can't see the point. And you are forgetting everything that is not in > the guidelines and is still important. Imho the mistake here is, that it is not documented in the guidelines. If there are secret important issues that need to be checked, where should the new reviewers come from? > > By providing a base template for package review, you make it easier to > > check off the really simple items, allowing more time to be focused on > > the ones without simple yes/no answers. > > But simple items are always simple to check off, template or not. And > simple items that are simple for all packages aren't really existing. > Simple items that allow for automation are already automated (in > rpmlint). Even simple items can be easily forgotten, if it is a PITA to find them all in the huge collection of Guidelines. Regards, Till
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
