I suspect most people won't read this as the thread probably looks like a flamewar to most of them already, but nevertheless two comments: Kevin Fenzi schrieb: > One other thing to take into account is the history of the person doing > the review. If I saw a review done by say mschwent or tibbs that just > said 'APPROVED', I would suspect they looked over the package fully. Fully agreed. I'm therefor still for what I wrote in the meeting summary and what I proposed during the meeting with a slight modification: The reviewer at least has to mention that he checked the license and if the sources match upstream when approving a package. He further *should* mention what he checked during review, especially if he his not a long term contributor yet. > [...] > If we had a big pool of reviewers ...then we should do re-reviews of the packages that are in the repo. I think you'll find a lot of old cruft in our existing packages that is unneeded (there are probably still packages that probably require "python-abi" manually) or wrong now and nobody noticed it. CU thl -- 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
