Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:00:02 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> === Minimal approve messages ===
> 
> Background: Some packages ( krename:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220210 and
>  pyfribidi: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219071
> ) were not branched by our human cvs guards because it was unclear if a
> full review had beed done for them -- at branch request time there was
> only a small note "APPROVED" in a comment of thereview bugs without
> details what things had been checked

Any more formalism and bureaucracy will drive away reviewers. I think
we've agreed on that long ago. I'm surprised this topic has returned.
 
>  * dgilmore: the reason i refused to branch those two packages was that
> the review just said i approve this; [...] i had no way to know if any
> checking or anything was done

To which detail would you verify a detailed list of things the reviewer
claims he has checked?

All that matters is to know who approved a package. Then you know who to
talk to if it turns out the packaging is unsatisfactory and the review was
half-hearted.