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. -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
