On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 11:32 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 11:19 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > > So, you should just copy and paste all of the guidelines into the > review? :-) Because the fact that the package follows the guidelines is > what is supposed to be checked, not just some subset. > > A much better check and balance is exactly what happened in this case; > dgilmore saw something suspicious and held off on the branch request. > The next step would be either just doing just sort of a quick review or > asking someone else to do a quick pass with such a review... such random > and spot checks of reviews will go a long way towards verification. Aren't we looking at automating branch creation down the road? I seem to remember dgilmore mentioning something about this yesterday. /B -- Brian Pepple <bpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
