Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 12:08:16AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 23:30:09 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > I don't think Callum suggests you to reduce to only these items on the
> > checklist, it should be considered the basic items to check. After all
> > they are called a MUST for a reason, e.g. supposedly *every review*
> > has checked the MUST items, 
> 
> What is the purpose of listing them in the review then?

Ensuring that reviewers get in touch with the checklist instead of ...

> APPROVAL => all MUST items must have passed the check

... using the easy way out.

> > and listing them in the review with a check after them signals
> > that you indeed are following the very basic QA requirements.
> 
> How do you know whether it's not just a single cut'n'paste job?

I don't, and I know that even less when there's a one-liner "APPROVED"
in the bugzilla entry.

> The only interesting point is when after approval it turns out that the
> reviewer has NOT checked something and has NOT noticed one or more flaws
> that should have been noticed when processing the MUST items.

Better be proactive than finding whom to blame afterwards: Forcing the
reviewer to interact with the checklist make it less likely for missed
items especially when compared to "wild reviews".
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20061230/48e9df8c/attachment.sig>