Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I would normally agree, but I have seen a number of cases where people got Obsoletes/Provides wrong and caused a mess. ;(
I would like to see them get another pair of eyes on their package before pushing the renamed version out. Thats all.
Then maybe the guideline should be that the reviewer has to check for valid Obsoletes/Provides, but any other checks are optional (as in: if the reviewer notices something obviously wrong, he/she should report it and request it fixed before approving the rename, but he/she shouldn't be required to go through the whole checklist again)?
Kevin Kofler