Re: proposal for fedora11 feature ReviewOMatic

[Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs math uh edu>]

>>>>> "NM" == Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas mailhot laposte net> writes:

NM> Conversely, since guidelines change with time, and packagers have
NM> been known to add stuff later that would never have passed review,
NM> some sort of regular auditing of existing packages would be great.

Infinite manpower would be great, too.  Unfortunately at this point I
think the limited amount of reviewer time is better spent dealing
with the incoming queue, which has grown over the holidays.  I also
don't see the situation improving much as long as it is deemed
acceptable to drop large numbers of packages in the queue without
doing something close to a proportional number of reviews.  Several of
us are willing to soak up the extras but it simply isn't enough.

 - J<