Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

>>>>> "MS" == Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael at gmx.net> writes:

MS> Any more formalism and bureaucracy will drive away reviewers. I
MS> think we've agreed on that long ago. I'm surprised this topic has
MS> returned.

I as well, and I objected to this when it came up.

I prefer a much simpler rule: please just tell us what you checked.
As the review is permanently kept as evidence, reviewers should not
leave things open to question.  If you looked at something and found
it OK, please indicate that instead of asking others to assume that
you checked something and found it not worth commenting on.

When reviewing 30 nearly identical Perl or PHP modules, occasionally
you just want to say that the last one is just like the other 29, and
I think it's feasible to do so.  Additional bizarre rules don't really
help much.

I try to actually read all of the review traffic and point out places
where I think things are deficient, but lately I haven't had the time.

 - J<