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

Re: RFC: Review with Flags (Version 5)

Warren Togami wrote:
This procedure is meant to be for *BOTH* Merge and regular package reviews. Please comment. I hope we can finally ratify something during this Thursday's FESCO meeting.

Changes since Version 4:
- ASSIGNED to nobody if there is no reviewer yet.
- ASSIGNED remains on reviewer thereafter.
- Use NEEDINFO if someone other than the reviewer needs to take action.

Fedora Review Flag States
fedora-review BLANK
    I want a review, or a past reviewer gave up.
    Under Review, ASSIGNED to reviewer
    Denied and needs work, NEEDINFO to owner
    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.

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

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

- 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.
- *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

why is this one optional but need info not? To me
fedora-review- and NEEDINFO should only be used if there is a dispute / things are moving slow, normally a review can have quite a few quickly following eachother comments where the reviewer and submitter work things out I still see no use in this PING PONG-ing of the status and fedora-review flag, this has been mentioned by me and several others several times, why is no one listening or atleast a response is geiven explaining what the perceived advantage of using NEEDINFO is, even if the review is going smoothly. Even better make the NEEDINFO fedora-review- step optional.

To me fedora-review- should be used with CLOSED WONTFIX if the package is denied forever (for example if the license is no good) and NEEDINFO should be used as it always is in bugzilla.

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
    NEEDINFO to whoever needs to fix it.
3b. fedora-review- and owner provides fix
    fedora-review back to ?, to request re-review
Can we PLEASE make step 3a and 3b optional, I only see extra mouse clicks with little added value here.

5. After fedora-review+
    initiate the fedora-cvs request procedure
6. After fedora-cvs procedure (empty directories are in CVS)
    verify buids



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