Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Jesse Keating]

On Saturday 30 December 2006 13:15, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Well, in the same hyperbolic nature an "APPROVED" only says that a
> person hit eight characters on his keyboard in the proper sequence.
>
> We should stop assuming the worse from the reviewers and just guide
> them to do their review properly. And even if you do assume bad
> reviewer then the checklisting is the way to find what they missed and
> why.
>
> Let's try another approach: Other than the people having written the
> review guidelines no one has memorized the list (probably the authors
> didn't either) and will have to check the MUSTs somewhere, be it in
> the wiki or his personal notes. If he is going to check the items why
> not publicly in the bugzilla? It's zero effort in addition, unless the
> reviewer didn't check the MUSTs at all, and that would be bad and
> worth catching.

Having a checklist is fine, forcing reviewers to paste it into a review bug 
purely so that somebody could have a warm and fuzzy feeling that the review 
was actually done is silly.  So sure, maintain a condensed checklist of the 
musts/shoulds.  Review guidelines point to this.  Forcing it to be pasted 
into bugs, not so much.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- 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/20061230/0ab593d1/attachment.sig>