Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Callum Lerwick]

On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 11:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ville =?utf-8?q?Skytt=C3=A4?= <ville.skytta at iki.fi> writes:
> > On Friday 29 December 2006 16:00, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> The decision went towards a proposed new rule: "the reviewer has to at
> >> least mention that he checked the license, if the sources match upstream
> >> and 5 other points he checked when approving a package".
> 
> > I don't think this makes much sense.  How many points does the one then 
> > subsequently reviewing that the package was reviewed properly have to add?  
> 
> I agree that this sounds like pointless pedantry.  It would be
> reasonable to list all these things in the guidelines for reviewers,
> if they aren't already.  But requiring reviewers to (in effect)
> copy-and-paste the guidelines in every approval message is a waste of
> storage space and readers' time.

On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 17:10 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>Any more formalism and bureaucracy will drive away reviewers. I think
> we've agreed on that long ago. I'm surprised this topic has returned.

I... am absolutely astounded by all this. For doing reviews, I keep this
template in a Tomboy note:

MUST items:

- rpmlint:
- Package name:
- Spec name:
- Meets packaging guidelines:
- License:
- Spec in American English:
- Spec legible:
- Sources match upstream:
- Builds:
- BuildRequires:
- Locales:
- ldconfig:
- Relocation:
- Directory ownership:
- %files:
- %clean:
- Macros:
- Code vs. Content:
- Documentation:
- devel package:
- .desktop file:

SHOULD:

- Includes license text:
- Mock build:
- Builds on all archs:
- Package functional:
- Scriptlets:
- Subpackages:

Which follows the review guidelines pretty closely. When I finalize a
review, I just copy and paste this template into a new note, go down the
ReviewGuidelines list, and type in an "Ok" or a "NEEDSWORK" for each
one. If the time required to copy and paste and type some OK's would add
significantly to your workload, I dare say you aren't putting in
adequate time, thought and effort into your reviews.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20061229/d5351c7f/attachment.sig>