Christopher Stone wrote:
On 1/30/07, Warren Togami <wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
> Further filing of review bugs is blocking on two issues:
>
> 1) We must decide whether or not the review should be assigned to the
> reviewer or package owner. I believe package owner is more logical,
> because that person is accountable to doing the work. The reviewer is
> already tracked by name in the flag itself, which too is logical.
OK, it seems the only real drawback to "ASSIGNED to owner instead of
reviewer" is Tibbs' good point about being able to see it on
frontpage.cgi.
Guys, I have to say this constant switching back and forth of ASIGNEE
is not a good idea. Not only is it a pain in the keister to keep on
switching the ASIGNEE back and forth like a tennis ball, but if the
packager forgets to do this, then the reviewer will never get e-mails
on the bug.
I fully agree this new process is a PITA. The old process worked very
well, what problems where there with the old process that this new
process is trying to fix?
And leave the bug open ? WTF? I don't want to have open bugs on my front
page for completed package reviews. Unlike others I actually try to keep
my open bug count close to 0.
This _really_ is a change for the bad. Why o why?
Aren't we all engineers, what happened to first defining the problem (I
see no problem with the current process), then generating possible
solutions and criteria for these (like simpleness, as little actions /
mouse clicks as needed) and then match the solutions to the requirements
and criteria?
THAT clearly didn't happen here!
Regards,
Hans
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
