[Fedora-packaging] Request for confirmation: Which form is required for a review

[Jon Ciesla]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Runge <mrunge at matthias-runge.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> lately, I stumbled upon a review, which I thought, wouldn't suffice.
> It looks like the following
>
> name: ok
> summary: ok
> license: ok
> handling locale files: ok
> rpmlint output: only spelling warning
> Not needed BuildRequires: (names), please remove them in git.
>
> APPROVED.
>
>
> My question is: is this review sufficient, if not, where is it written down,
> that it isn't? I'm especially aiming to the form of this review.
>
> I wasn't able to spot a requirement to write something like approved (or
> something else) on
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
>
> Further more, there isn't anything said about how the reviewer should
> document his work. If we deny the requirement of documenting reviewer's
> operation, then just setting the approved flag conforms with the guidelines;
> This also claims, everything has been checked and is well done.
>
> Am I missing something? Is there any need to clarify our review guidelines?
> Do we need something more documented? Do we trust our reviewers, so there's
> no need of bureaucracy? Why should/must I do more than just setting the flag
> or writing 7 catchwords?

I'd expect to see at least:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Spots_Review_Cheat_Sheet

But you're right, what you saw was pretty spartan.

-J

> Thanks
> --
> Matthias Runge <mrunge at matthias-runge.de>
>               <mrunge at fedoraproject.org>
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging



-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie