Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting
Thorsten Leemhuis
fedora at leemhuis.info
Sat Dec 30 19:58:44 UTC 2006
I suspect most people won't read this as the thread probably looks like
a flamewar to most of them already, but nevertheless two comments:
Kevin Fenzi schrieb:
> One other thing to take into account is the history of the person doing
> the review. If I saw a review done by say mschwent or tibbs that just
> said 'APPROVED', I would suspect they looked over the package fully.
Fully agreed. I'm therefor still for what I wrote in the meeting summary
and what I proposed during the meeting with a slight modification:
The reviewer at least has to mention that he checked the license and if
the sources match upstream when approving a package. He further *should*
mention what he checked during review, especially if he his not a long
term contributor yet.
> [...]
> If we had a big pool of reviewers
...then we should do re-reviews of the packages that are in the repo. I
think you'll find a lot of old cruft in our existing packages that is
unneeded (there are probably still packages that probably require
"python-abi" manually) or wrong now and nobody noticed it.
CU
thl
More information about the Fedora-maintainers
mailing list