On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:19:04AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 10:09:58PM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
FWIW, I'm not sure that's really true. The fedora-review tool makes it
very easy to do a low-effort review and still produce a pretty
checklist. (This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely means
that presence of a checklist doesn't indicate particular diligence.)
I don't think that's so. fedora-review produces a template half-full of
empty boxes, and yes, you can tick them without actually performing the
checks, but that would be deception. Our process is not designed to guard
against deception, only against mistakes or ignorance.
> Package review is public and happens in the review bug. We also
> require (in the sense of having a strong custom, maybe even if it's
> not written anywhere explicitly), a checklist style review. This allows
If we want it to be a requirement, we should write it down.
In my experience, we err much more on the side of nitpicking and
formality in reviews. I think the guidelines are fine as they are.
(Also, there are some packages where large parts of any checklist
would not apply. This is especially true for packages containing keys,
or data, or some config stuff. If we added a *requirement*, we would
also have to add so many possible exceptions to make the rules very