Christopher Stone wrote:
On 2/3/07, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I kind of like the moving of assigned. It shows who next needs to take
action. Of course something like NEEDINFO (emailaddress) might work as
well.
I don't. It's an extra step that most people will forget to do. I'm
just not going to bother, I'm going to assign it to me (the reviewer)
and be done with it. Plus, was there *ever* any confusion before this
change as to who next needs to take action?? I simply do not see any
extra benefit from all this extra work.
Yes, there is confusion about who needs to take action, because the
filer of the Mass Review tickets was not the owner.
We are supposed to be making things *easier*, not more difficult.
Another case is all these extras steps, now not only do we have to
rely on someone to make cvs branches, we also have to rely on someone
to add entries to owners.list, next it will be comps,
The current process sucks because the implementation is not complete.
Toshio and Notting during the weekend were discussing how to better
automate this process.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to sort out exactly the status of this. I suspect
the type of automation they want is too far off, so I am thinking about
how simplify the interim process in the mean time.
(Waiting for notting to get back, I have to discuss this with him.)
then we will
have to get permissions just to edit our own packages!
I have to call bullshit on this assertion. The owner always has access
to their own package, and may grant access of their package to anyone
else, or everyone.
Warren Togami
wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx
--
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
