Attract QA'ers

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 00:02, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> gauret at free.fr (Aurelien Bompard) writes:
> 
> > As an proposal, I think QA'ers should make sure they set the NEEDSWORK
> > keyword and remove the QA keyword when they think the package should
> > be improved.
> 
> I do not think that the current bugzilla based QA is very effectively
> since there is needed lot of manual work and no way to enforce proper
> usage. The current unstructured QA list is too complex and deters
> people. This will not be changed by adding new keywords or specifying
> their usage. IMO it will have the opposite effect since the process
> becomes more and more complicated.
Well spoken. What you describe has been and still is the main reason for
me having refrained from wanting to get involved.

[user interface]

IMO, the whole QA-process should be condensed into a simple
"state/transition-model" a package has to live through.
Such a model then should be reflected into a couple of web-forms,
allowing package uploads, check-boxes to send packages to their next
state etc. etc.

> The question is, whether it would be worth to begin such an implementation
> for fedora.us or if it would be wasted time since it conflicts with Red
> Hat's ideas about the Fedora Project.
Frankly speaking, I don't expect anybody but RH to be able to implement
an alternative user interface to QA or clearly structured QA model for
various reasons ;)

Ralf