On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Runge <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > lately, I stumbled upon a review, which I thought, wouldn't suffice. > It looks like the following > > name: ok > summary: ok > license: ok > handling locale files: ok > rpmlint output: only spelling warning > Not needed BuildRequires: (names), please remove them in git. > > APPROVED. > > > My question is: is this review sufficient, if not, where is it written down, > that it isn't? I'm especially aiming to the form of this review. > > I wasn't able to spot a requirement to write something like approved (or > something else) on > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines > > Further more, there isn't anything said about how the reviewer should > document his work. If we deny the requirement of documenting reviewer's > operation, then just setting the approved flag conforms with the guidelines; > This also claims, everything has been checked and is well done. > > Am I missing something? Is there any need to clarify our review guidelines? > Do we need something more documented? Do we trust our reviewers, so there's > no need of bureaucracy? Why should/must I do more than just setting the flag > or writing 7 catchwords? I'd expect to see at least: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Spots_Review_Cheat_Sheet But you're right, what you saw was pretty spartan. -J > Thanks > -- > Matthias Runge <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > -- > packaging mailing list > packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
