Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:30:17 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 12:08:16AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 23:30:09 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't think Callum suggests you to reduce to only these items on the
> > > checklist, it should be considered the basic items to check. After all
> > > they are called a MUST for a reason, e.g. supposedly *every review*
> > > has checked the MUST items, 
> > 
> > What is the purpose of listing them in the review then?
> 
> Ensuring that reviewers get in touch with the checklist instead of ...

Ouch. Deadlock. We're in a loop! When the reviewer is forced to include
a commented mandatory incomplete checklist, this would require the
reviewer to document all additional checks (among them things more
important than what's in the checklist), too, for completeness. I
hereby refuse to do that and will rather stop doing reviews completely.
I do custom reviews and adapt to what is contained within a package,
and more often than not that has helped in blocking crap.

> > APPROVAL => all MUST items must have passed the check
> 
> ... using the easy way out.

No, there is no excuse if the approved package does not pass the checklist
actually.

> > > and listing them in the review with a check after them signals
> > > that you indeed are following the very basic QA requirements.
> > 
> > How do you know whether it's not just a single cut'n'paste job?
> 
> I don't, and I know that even less when there's a one-liner "APPROVED"
> in the bugzilla entry.

Then it's pointless.
 
> > The only interesting point is when after approval it turns out that the
> > reviewer has NOT checked something and has NOT noticed one or more flaws
> > that should have been noticed when processing the MUST items.
> 
> Better be proactive than finding whom to blame afterwards: Forcing the
> reviewer to interact with the checklist make it less likely for missed
> items especially when compared to "wild reviews".

No, thank you. This is a big turn-off criterion for me. When I say "APPROVED",
all that matters is whether anybody can point me to something I've missed.