Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Jesse Keating]

On Saturday 30 December 2006 12:48, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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.

Whether or not the guidelines were regurgitated into the bug report has no 
bearing on if a valid and quality review was done.  None whatsoever.  All it 
does is say "this person copied/pasted some content from a wiki page, and 
possibly filled in some blanks".  It does not prove or disprove that the 
reviewer actually LOOKED at the package in question.  There is no way to tell 
that, without video proof of the review.  You have to trust your reviewers, 
and spotchecks go a long way toward that.  Just pasting content does NOT help 
the problem.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- 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/20061230/52d0a702/attachment.sig>