On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 11:38 +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote: > One argument against it raised in the past is, that this might lead to fewer > people reviewing a package (or giving an ACK for a package), as they might be > unsure about it. Actually, I believe that reviewing a package is actually a > more difficult task then to create a new package from scratch, and so I think > that this argument might still be true. > > As I've often cherrypicked reviews in the past (that is reviewed packages, > which had one ACK already), and very often found issues with these, I fear > that the package quality might get worse, and the rejection count from > ubuntu-archive might increase. Now I wouldn't think, that I'm a so good > reviewer, but rather that this is basically just, because different people > spot different issues in packages.
Hi, Do you think that this could perhaps be because some people don't review the package as thoroughly as they know that someone else will look at it first? Increasing the quality of reviews is great, but just having a second reviewer doesn't necessarily guarantee that. As well as each reviewer knowing that someone else will look, the responsibility is diluted. If I were to miss something in a review when I was the only reviewer then it would be my omission, but with two reviewers both missed it, so it's not really one persons fault. It's not clear to me where the best compromise is here. Thanks, James -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
