> No one is really doubting that. But, it's all about
*documenting* what
> you did (and what you didn't) in the review. That's the most important
> reason for the existence of a a review ticket at all.
The most important reason for the existence of a a review ticket is to
make sure someone in a trusted group did review a package. If there is
any doubt about the quality of one review the checks should start from
the package that was effectively imported in rawhide, ***NOT*** what
the reviewer declared checking in the review ticket.
In case of doubt the information in the review ticket is just as
likely to be flawed as the package itself, and in the end the package
we ship is the only thing that really matters.
Long check-list cut and pastes where some tests are erroneously pasted
from another review with this other review value are not unknown of.
From the POV of a inexperienced packager, having this long list of
checked items with remarks on the ones that don't pass is a great
help.
In fact, I learned much more on packaging during the review of my
packages than when I created them. That's because when you're new, it
can be really hard to understand what those items mean. But when the
reviewer says:
- this item:
=> FAIL because blahblahblah
Then you think "oh, that's what this was supposed to mean ?".
I'm not sure I made myself clear, but I do think that detailed reviews
are necessary. This has nothing to do with the trust we have in
packagers / sponsors, but with the submitter's trainship.
Regards,
----------
Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)
French Fedora Ambassador
----------
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin