Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

>>>>> "MS" == Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael at gmx.net> writes:

MS> It is not feasible. Certainly not for me. It is
MS> inefficient. Having to document each and every minor detail I
MS> perceive while reviewing a package would require using a
MS> completely different work-flow.

So I'm confused; are you saying that you advocate a simple "APPROVED"
with no explanation for reviews where you found no issues of note?
And if not, then how much do you think is necessary to list?

MS> Rather than requiring reviewers to be pedantic, better encourage
MS> packagers to be more verbose in their spec file comments.

Well, firstly I have not advocated requiring reviewers to be pedantic
(just the opposite, in fact), so I'll assume that you're replying to
something other than the message which you quoted.  But I will
certainly agree that it is good to encourage packagers to be more
verbose in specfile comments where warranted.  I think it's a bit of a
non sequitur in this thread, however.

>> As the review is permanently kept as evidence, reviewers should not
>> leave things open to question.  If you looked at something and
>> found it OK, please indicate that instead of asking others to
>> assume that you checked something and found it not worth commenting
>> on.

MS> Why? Silent observers are irrelevant.  Only if an observer finds
MS> something arguable and points it out, it gets interesting.

This is patently untrue, to the degree that I have to wonder if you
are being disingenuous.  Do you not agree that prospective reviewers
(i.e. the people who we desperately need once the current overworked
crop of volunteers burn out) should have a volume of good reviews to
learn from?

 - J<