Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Brian Pepple]

On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 17:57 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:33:44 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote:
> > 
> > That sounds fine to me.  The problem I had was reviewers just putting
> > 'APPROVED' in reviews, and not giving any information on what was
> > actually checked.
> 
> It doesn't make sense to create detailed lists. A single "APPROVED" is
> fine. I've done that multiple times myself, because everything else is too
> time-consuming. Even my old-style reviews have been inconsistent and
> misleading to the silent observer, because they never mentioned everything
> I had checked. I can catch many packaging bugs and pitfalls with the blink
> of an eye. And at the same speed it is possible to verify many things one
> must not find in a spec. You don't want to slow-down the possibly
> experienced reviever and force him to create detailed lists.

I agree this would be extra work for the experienced packagers, but
maybe we should have an exemption if they are a sponsor.

/B
-- 
Brian Pepple <bpepple at fedoraproject.org>

gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B  CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20061229/660d9460/attachment.sig>