New review checklist

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Dear reviewer,

in the sequel find the new review checklist, effective immediately. 
Failure to apply it will result in the confiscation of your machine for
the purpose of making it usable for continuous integration.

Happy April Fools

-----

So you want to package a
  [ ] C  [ ] C++  [ ] C#  [ ] Common Lisp  [ ] Emacs Lisp  [ ] Fortran
  [ ] Guile  [ ] Haskell  [ ] Java  [ ] Javascript  [ ] Julia  [ ] Nim
  [ ] OCaml  [ ] Python  [ ] R  [ ] Rust  [ ] V  [ ] Zig  [ ] ________
application/library/________.
It won't be added to Guix.  Here's why it won't.

You appear to believe that
[ ] linter warnings can easily be ignored
[ ] `make check' does not need to succeed
[ ] nobody will ever want to build your package on
   [ ] x86_64  [ ] i686  [ ] aarch64  [ ] armhf  [ ] mips____
   [ ] powerpc____  [ ] riscv__  [ ] ______-mingw32  [ ] the Hurd
[ ] commit hashes make for good version numbers
[ ] hard-coding the commit field is a good idea
[ ] using trivial-build system is a good idea
[ ] we hard-code
   [ ] invocations of command line tools
   [ ] shared libraries
   [ ] _________
   for fun
[ ] updating ______ to add your package does not cause a world rebuild
[ ] committers have nothing better to do than trailing a branch that
    receives _____ commits per day.

Sadly your patch has/lacks
[ ] copyright headers
[ ] changes in other parts of the file
[ ] indentation
[ ] speling misstakes
[ ] new-style inputs
[ ] propagated inputs
[ ] a useful synopsis
[ ] a meaningful description
[ ] a valid home-page
[ ] correct licensing information
[ ] significant improvements over the three other patches adding this  
    package, which themselves are stuck in review hell

The following technophilosophical objections also apply:
[ ] the GNU FSDG prohibit _____________________________
[ ] your package bundles a meaningless copy of
   [ ] ffmpeg
   [ ] v8
   [ ] font-awesome
   [ ] bundler
   [ ] rustc
   [ ] ________
[ ] your package bootstraps itself using a sparse autoencoder trained
    on /dev/urandom
[ ] your package is not reproducible thanks to
   [ ] embedded timestamps
   [ ] CPU feature detection during configure/compile time
   [ ] a flaky test suite
   [ ] an evil hack to call rand() inside a constexpr context
[ ] Guix should not have to carry every fork of suckmore tools

In conclusion, this is what I think of you:
[ ] Your patch looks good, but I'm not going to push it.
[ ] Your patch would need some work, and I'm not going to invest that
    time on your behalf.
[ ] Your patch is bad and you should feel bad for submitting it.
[ ] Maintaining this package in your own channel is an adequate
    punishment for writing it.