Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 12:40:00PM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Saturday 30 December 2006 12:38, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > If you do find a broken review item and you have a checklist where the
> > reviewer explicitely marked this item as checked, then you know that
> > he was wrong or extremely sloppy. When doing a simple APPROVED you
> > can't tell whether he missed it for thinking he has memorized all
> > guidelines.
> 
> I don't buy this.  "Extremely sloppy" could be that he just copied/pasted.  It 
> is no more valuable than APPROVED.  Either way the reviewer missed something 
> and needs to reeducate themselves.  Pasting a checklist adds no value.  Only 
> harm.

Just let me comment that when I explored becoming a contributor to FE
one of my most pleasant experiences when I checked the packages
submission procedure back then was the high quality of reviewing done
and the implied quality of the packages.

Until this thread I wasn't aware of monolectical reviews and if this
would become a habit it would decrease the quality of packages let
through. Which I find a pity as one of the nicest parts of FE was the
quality of packages.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20061230/67210c09/attachment.sig>