Package Process for Discussion
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
ivazquez at ivazquez.net
Thu Jun 30 11:32:25 UTC 2005
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 12:31 +0200, Warren Togami wrote:
> If the review is canceled or times out, should it go back to NEW or some
> other state that means NOT_NEW_BUT_NEEDS_REVIEW_AGAIN?
>
> If the reason for NEEDSWORK is fixed, should it go back to NEW or some
> other state that means NOT_NEW_BUT_NEEDS_REVIEW_AGAIN?
>
> I personally think it makes little sense to have a "NEW" state and
> another that have almost the same meaning, because they are both in an
> unclaimed state. Any thoughts? If you think we should have that other
> state, what should we call it?
REVISED? NEEDSREVISION?
> Some other Misc. Thoughts
> =========================
> 1) "Claimed" status must automatically timeout after a certain amount of
> time. Maybe 12 hours?
Works for me. It requires reviewers to be on the ball, but doesn't
penalize them if something comes up in the meantime.
> 2)
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora%20Extras&format=extras-review
> This is the current submission interface. I think perhaps the Arch
> chooser is not ideal here. There is no way of saying for example "i386
> and ppc but not x86-64". It may be better to instead hide the Arch
> field, and use flags for each arch?
>
> The form could have all supported archs checked by default, and the
> submitter could uncheck them explicitly if they want to be excluded.
Agreed.
> 4) It appears that the form wants to submit to product "Fedora Extras"
> currently. Shouldn't it submit to its own product, so we can keep these
> bugs away from the bugs associated with actual packages with owners?
Sounds like a plan. That may also simplify the notification logic.
> 5) There are no "owners" of package requests, so there need to be
> various auto-mailers setup, like a mailing list for people to subscribe
> to watch new package submissions. Some people even want to see all QA
> traffic, so this would be a different list. It would be nice if we
> could use mailman's concept of sublists in order to automatically kill
> the potential for annoying duplication, but I'm not exactly sure how
> this would work in this case.
The next revision of BZ is supposed to have RSS support IIRC. That could
be another option.
> 6) We want flags for target distribution. The flags would default
> checked for "4" and "devel", and the submitter can choose more target
> distributions if they wish.
Another excellent idea.
--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazquez at ivazquez.net>
http://fedora.ivazquez.net/
gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net --recv-key 38028b72
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20050630/31041b96/attachment.sig>
More information about the Fedora-maintainers
mailing list