Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Jesse Keating]

On Sunday 31 December 2006 06:52, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> Which is the whole idea of my checklist. It follows the MUST list
> basically point-for-point. (Some related stuff gets mushed together into
> one item, like everything relating to %file lists, and directory/file
> ownership.) Everything in the MUST list is a MUST, and thus... MUST be
> checked.
>
> And really, the list is primarily for *my* benefit. To make sure *I*
> don't miss any of them. I don't know how anyone could keep track of all
> that in their head. And since I'm keeping a checklist anyway, I might as
> well post it in the review.
>
> Like Axel said, professional pilots and NASA astronauts keep pre and
> post-flight checklists. (And in the case of NASA, a bazillion in
> between...) I honestly don't understand how a professional packager
> could be so against keeping a review checklist. Of MUST items. To each
> their own I guess.

I'm all for having a checklist.  What I'm not for is adding more noise to the 
review that doesn't help.  It doesn't solve the fundamental problem of "was 
this package correctly reviewed or not" and no amount of noise in a bug will 
help that.  Back/forth on items that don't adhere to the guideline DOES help, 
but in the end, the only way to actually know if the review was done right is 
to look at the package yourself.  And even then its a wash as the lazy 
reviewer could have just gotten lucky and the package was fine.

So, checklist good.  Dumping checklist into review bug not so useful.

-- 
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/20061231/e92d716c/attachment.sig>