Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 10:42 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> 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.

I largely agree with Jesse and mschwendt on this.

The only place that I see a checklist being helpful is when deciding
whether to sponsor a new contributor.  At that time, it is still an open
question whether the contributor has even read the ReviewGuidelines
page.  If they create and fill out a checklist based on the
ReviewGuidelines page then you know that they are aware of the
ReviewGuidelines and things you find lacking are either sloppiness or
misunderstanding of what the Guidelines mean.

If they don't include the checklist, you don't know whether they're
misunderstanding or if they haven't even read through the Guidelines.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070101/f9229a5f/attachment.sig>