On 08/02/12 20:51, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Bottom line is that it isn't. This turns into a nice argument every few
years.
Thanks for your answers. It reads like there's no review documentation
required. Asking for this leads to endless discussion, and probably to
no result.
In the past when I ran across one of these (i.e. back in the good old
days when I actually read the entire package review mailing list) I'd
double check and I pretty much always found something that was
overlooked. Opening a discussion about how the review was probably
insufficient was usually enough.
In my earlier noted case, I should prove, the reviewer had something
forgotten to check.
To be clear, imho there's no need to take back a granted review, the
packager of the reviewed package knows his job well.
I think, a review generates work to do for the reviewer. Why one
shouldn't see, how much, work or which results were found during this
work. (even if it reads ... ok, ... ok, ... ).
--
Matthias Runge <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
