Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[lonely wolf]

On 12/29/2006 10:14 PM, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> 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.
>   
>   
How about Spot's "cheat" sheet ( 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SpotsReviewCheatSheet?highlight=%28cheat%29 
) ?