[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Package Review Process Proposal



On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Dave Lawrence wrote:

> Package Review Proof of Concept
> -------------------------------
> 
> I have created a new product in our production Bugzilla called "Fedora Extras Package Review".
> When clicking on the link, the user gets a stripped down version of a entry form with just 
> a few required fields represented. Platform, Cc, URL, Summary, and Description. The values
> would be similar to the what was being entered into review requests at fedora.us. The review
> requests can have assigned to, qa contact and initial cc members just like and other Bugzilla
> component. These can be some sort of package-review-list mailing list or fedora-extras-list,
> whichever. Once the new report is submitted, there are several new status flags which only
> display for package requests specifically. These are currently:

Great! It kinda seems like a lot of packages are getting announced for 
initial review, and then never getting farther. Hopefully tracking will 
help with that

> Name            Description
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> extrasÿÿlegal    Package reviewed for any known legal issues or licencing problems.
> extrasÿÿreview   Package review request picked up and in progress.

Are these two really separate? Right now it kinda seems like the initial 
reviewers tend to do the basic sanity checking of whether its 
distributable

> extrasÿÿapproval Package approval for inclusion in the Fedora Extras project
> extrasÿÿfc3      Package approval for inclusion in the FC3 version of the Fedora Extras project.
> extrasÿÿfc4      Package approval for inclusion in the FC4 version of the Fedora Extras project.

Right now we don't do separate approvals for each branch. It's just a 
review okaying to import initially, and then a review okaying to build 
(which covers all branches). Are the separate approvals actually needed?

later,
chris

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]