RFC: fedora.us bugzilla keywords

[Ville Skyttä]

On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 16:51, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Ping...
> 
> [Attachment statuses to signal "first review", "second review"]
> 
> Question: Does this raise the hurdle to QA again compared with adding just
> another bugzilla keyword? As reviewers would be required to not just post
> a clearsigned comment. They would need to become familiar with the "Create
> a New Attachment" window.

Maybe.

Further, it would be more "correct" process-wise if the initial package
submission was the attachment.  Then, reviews would be posted by editing
that attachment, setting the status, and binding the reviews clearly to
that particular submission/revision.  However, it would result in
reviews being posted as the "edit attachment" comments, ie. again
inlined.

New package revisions would be made again by posting a new attachment,
which would obsolete the previous submission attachment.

So, from the submitter POV:
1) Submit an initial description about the package.
2) Post an attachment containing the URL (or something else) to the
   package.
3) Wait for reviews; if need to revise, post another attachment and
   obsolete the old one.

And the reviewer:
1) Review the package submitted as the attachment.
2) Edit the submission attachment, set the status flags and post the
   review comments as the edit attachment comments.  Sign the review
   at least if it's a positive one etc.

Some stuff to check:
- Is it possible to create a query that does not match attachment
  statuses for obsoleted attachments?
- Is the Bugzilla web (and email UI) good enough for implementing this
  or will it cause too much confusion to be worth it?

This is already even more complex than the "the review is the
attachment" approach.  Dunno...