Raw notes... your comments would be very much appreciated.
Key Changes from Previous Procedures
====================================
1) Assigned to pointer indicates that there is a reviewer. Assigned
pointer to nobody means there is no reviewer yet.
2) BLANK means review not requested. ? means review requested. This
makes it easier to query, because querying for BLANK is a bit inefficient.
(Good idea, bad idea?)
3) NEEDINFO is used to avoid changing the Assigned pointer when fixes
are needed.
4) Assigned pointer DOES NOT CHANGE during and after the review.
Fedora Review Flag States
=========================
fedora-review BLANK (Not under review at all!)
fedora-review? (I want a review)
fedora-review- (rejected, needs work, set NEEDINFO to person who needs
to fix it)
fedora-review+ (APPROVED)
Assigned Pointer
================
(Note, Assigned pointer is different from the ASSIGNED state.)
- Assigned pointer to nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx if no reviewer yet.
- Assigned pointer to reviewer, during and after review.
- Set Assigned pointer back to nobody if reviewer gave up.
Bugzilla States
===============
NEW ASSIGNED REOPENED (rather meaningless distinction?)
NEEDINFO (to owner or somebody who needs to act to fix)
MODIFIED (seems to be fixed, please test it)
CLOSED (ticket is done)
Process
=======
1. Review Request is filed.
2. Set fedora-review? flag to signify that the ticket is ready for review.
3. Reviewer takes bug, Assigned pointer set to self.
4. If APPROVED, fedora-review+.
5. If rejected, fedora-review- and NEEDINFO owner to fix it.
6. If fedora-review- and owner fixes something, set back to ? to request
review again.
7. After fedora-review+, initiate the fedora-cvs request procedure.
8. After fedora-cvs, checkin, build, and set to CLOSED.
Drawbacks
=========
Since the mass review tickets were not filed by the package owners, it
is less than obvious. Most reviews however are filed by owners, so this
is less of a problem beyond this mass review.
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. (Good idea, bad idea?)
Possible Process Optimizations
==============================
(These might possibly help... although they might require hacks in
Bugzilla's code, so we only request these optimizations only if they
would make a huge positive difference. Your thoughts?)
1. Changing fedora-review in any way should auto-CC yourself automatically.
2. Changing fedora-review to + should auto-set Assigned pointer to self.
Your feedback is needed!
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
