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

RATIFIED: Review with Flags (Version 6)



Thursday, February 22nd, 2007 FESCO ratified this as the new package review process for *ALL* reviews. This includes both Merge Reviews and New Package Reviews. Next I need to find all places in the Wiki that need updating...

STOP USING THE TRACKER BUGS. Just leave them as-is. FESCO is thinking about what to do about them during next week's meeting.

Changes since Version 5:
========================
- fedora-review- is equivalent to FE-DEADPACKAGE. Only set to - if the package cannot be fixed and thus is no longer in consideration for reviews. Possible reasons may include:
  - license or other legal problems
  - other reasons that cannot be solved soon
- fedora-review? is equivalent to FE-REVIEW. Use this for any review in process. If you ask the owner to make changes, keep it set to ?, and use NEEDINFO on the owner.
- fedora-review+ is equivalent to FE-ACCEPT

Fedora Review Flag States
=========================
fedora-review BLANK
	I want a review, or a past reviewer gave up.
fedora-review?
	Under Review, ASSIGNED to reviewer
fedora-review-
	This review cannot proceed, dropped for legal or other issues.
fedora-review+
	APPROVED, ASSIGNED to reviewer

Assigned Pointer
================
- Assigned pointer to nobody fedoraproject org if no reviewer yet.
- Assigned pointer to reviewer, during and after the review.

Bugzilla States
===============
In practice a bug sitting in these states matter less than the state of
the fedora-review flag.  Participants are to follow these states as
suggested guidelines, but the fedora-review flag has the hard
requirements of behavior.

NEW ASSIGNED REOPENED
- There is no real distinction between these states, they all generally
mean "open".

NEEDINFO
- To owner or other person who needs to fix something or provide needed
information in order for the review to proceed.

MODIFIED
- Owner seems to have fixed it, but it requires testing.
- OPTIONAL: you don't need to use this state.  It could sit in ASSIGNED
where you do the same thing.  This might seem confusing, but we can't
stop people from using this state.  Yet another thing to simplify away
in the future ideal process.  I'm sorry if you're upset about this.
- *Special Case: During the Mass Review, the fix may go into rawhide and
the reviewer can verify both the CVS contents and package before giving
fedora-review+.

CLOSED RAWHIDE
- fedora-review+ is APPROVED, CVS procedure is done, and package is
built and confirmed to be done.
- *Special Case*: During the Mass Review, it is fine to set to CLOSED
RAWHIDE if it is confirmed to be fixed there. Please consider using MODIFIED prior to CLOSED RAWHIDE to allow for a verification step.

Review Process
==============
1. Review Request is filed
	fedora-review is BLANK
	Assigned to nobody
2. Reviewer Takes a Request
	fedora-review is ?
	Assigned to reviewer
3a. If review denied and needs work
	Comment
	NEEDINFO to whoever needs to fix it.
3b. NEEDINFO, owner provides fix
	Undo NEEDINFO status
4. If APPROVED
	fedora-review+
5. After fedora-review+
	initiate the fedora-cvs request procedure
	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure
6. After fedora-cvs procedure (empty directories are in CVS)
	checkin
	build
	verify buids
	set to CLOSED RAWHIDE

Other Possibilities
===================
fedora-review? could also be used on any other Fedora bug when a
horrible mess is found in an existing package, and attention for a
re-review would be desired to fix it.

Warren Togami
wtogami redhat com


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