Proposing MIR process simplification

[Martin Pitt]

Matt Zimmerman [2010-01-05 18:14 +0000]:
> I think there's value in confirming that the checklist was followed, though.

Indeed, confirming _that_ this happens is the absolute minimum.

> There is a big difference in transparency and commitment in stating the
> facts (i.e. which requirements were met and how), rather than just saying "I
> checked that it meets the requirements".  This shouldn't be any more work,
> since they need to follow the checklist anyway.  Is there any harm in
> stating that explicitly in the bug report?

You mean explicitly stating "I checked the packaging,
Debian/Ubuntu/Upstream bugs, security history, etc."? Of course
there's no harm in doing this. It would again introduce the kind
of boilerplate text which clutters the really interesting facts, but
it'd be much smaller, of course.

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)