Prelink success story :)

[Dag Wieers]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:39:31 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:
> 
> > > That infamous "QA checklist" is misunderstood frequently. It is hopelessly
> > > incomplete. If you go through it step by step upon reviewing a package,
> > > you can miss many other issues. If, however, the checklist were extended,
> > > it would grow *a lot* and increase the hurdle to QA significantly. The
> > > list in its current form just gives inspiration on what might be worth
> > > examining.
> > 
> > Ok, then please remove the non mandatory steps from it, if you want to 
> > remove the hurdle. It would have made this discussion non-existing ;)
> 
> What would that change?  We've talked about it, criticism has been noted,
> and as I've tried to make clear, the checklist should not be
> misunderstood. There is no silver bullet. One could create a different
> checklist for every different type of package. The biggest hurdle to QA is
> lack of common sense. I don't want to spend a lot of time editing
> documentation in the Wiki to please a single individual (read "you") who
> runs his own independent repository and doesn't really care. I'd rather
> like to know how to lower the hurdle for other people who would like to
> help, but who still don't know where to start. And that would mean that
> they start talking about any problems they see.

I guess I don't understand anything you're saying in the context of this 
discussion and I'm leaving it for what it was.

If the biggest hurdle to QA is lack of common sense I don't see why 
a non-mandatory rule is still in there. Especially if you can't do 
something wrong when both of 2 choices are allowed.

Do you still wonder why I care less ?

--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]