Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 06:08:23PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:52:22 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Again all or nothing. Just do the checklist in the bugzilla, that does
> > not have to be followed up by a book on your methology. You try to
> > bundle that in order to try to demonstrate that check lists are bad,
> > but the bundling is wrong to start with.
> 
> I won't use such checklists anymore. Period.
> 
> > > > Thanks for putting efforts into allowing good packages to
> > > > evolve, but any custom or packaging habits controlled reviewes
> > > > need to be on top of the base checklist.
> > > 
> > > Another loop.
> > 
> > Anything that disagrees with your opinion isn't neccessary a loop.
> 
> You misunderstand so many things and in return try to use smart
> rhetoric

And you're losing the etiquette.

> > > There really is only one way to verify a review, and that is to do
> > > an own review of the same package. Do it! Find sloppy reviews, where
> > > serious problems have slipped through, and then give reason to put
> > > an eye on reviewers.
> > 
> > I can check a review on its validity only if there is one to start with.
> 
> I feel so sleepy...

Have a pleasent sleep then.

> Not at all. No further comment, since "malicious cut and paste" is nothing
> I've referred to.

You imply that the reviewer will just cut'n'paste the list w/o really
checking the items, or not? If you don't then what's all the worry
about?  Do you have a problem if the reviewer pastes in an empty list
of requirements he needs to check and ACK or NACK them?
-- 
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/20061230/46d96b57/attachment.sig>