--nextPart3235012.fHrVQxZdey Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 04 August 2008, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > On Thursday 31 July 2008, Stephen Kelly wrote: > >> I propose a review process based on review criteria instead of time. > >> Reviewers would 'tick the boxes' to confirm that they have reviewed it, > >> and what they looked for. Multiple reviewers could tick only some of t= he > >> boxes each if necessary (I'd have no idea if something works on solaris > >> or has security flaws for example), and together create a complete > >> review. > > > > would this take the form of a web-based collaboration app? or? > > I was thinking email on k-c-d. If there's a suitable web-app for this kind > of thing which actually makes it easier, then that's cool too.=20 well, my experience in encouraging peer review within plasma is that mailin= g=20 lists simply don't cut it. they are a perfect aid, but the review needs to = be=20 handled elsewhere. the reason is that mailing lists archives are too difficult to track throug= h,=20 have no easy way to mark as "done!", have no work flow associated with them= at=20 all, really. it's a conversation medium, not a workflow medium a webapp really helps there (even if the webapp ultimately CC's a mailing l= ist=20 =3D) > Is > review-board suitable for applications, or mostly just patches (I have no > idea). it's not really suited for this at all, no. =2D-=20 Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Trolltech --nextPart3235012.fHrVQxZdey Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkiXhGEACgkQ1rcusafx20NRGgCeJ/Naq18JAkpAp6cllYeA1OXU lcIAn1tjPG/HI/csp5T23jtbGUAprKBb =8vqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3235012.fHrVQxZdey--