On Monday, 05 February 2007 at 23:45, Warren Togami wrote: > Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > >What's the failure point here now? > > > >As for the import process, we can change how that works - instead > >of CVSSyncNeeded, for example, we could just, after APPROVED, assign > >the review bug to the CVS admins to do the magic, at which point they > >assign it back to the owner to do the initial import/build. Is this > >a better interface for users? > > > > Folks seem to be confused by the ASSIGNED bouncing around. I am > currently thinking about potential ways to improve the review process to > remove this confusion. A big legitimate problem with changing ASSIGNED > is that it must be done manually, which is too easy to not happen > because it is not obvious. My point exactly. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CVSSyncNeeded > I made some changes to this page in an attempt to simplify this > temporary process until we have the PackageDB online. Unfortunately, I > suspect even this simplified process is too complicated. > 1. Request new package and branch. > 2. Wait until somebody creates empty directories and edits owners.list. > 3. Owner checks stuff in and builds. > > Perhaps a better idea than setting ASSIGNED to the CVS admins is to have > a fedora-cvs flag? Theoretical process: > > 1) Review is complete, fedora-review+ > 2) Owner writes in the Bugzilla comment something like: > <Branches> <PackageName> <FedoraAccountName> <BugName> > FC-5 FC-6 foopackage bobjoe bobjoebugzilla@xxxxxxxxx > 3) Set fedora-cvs flag > 4) CVS Admins get e-mail about fedora-cvs flag. All context of the > review is within the bug itself. Admin creates CVS directories and sets > owner. Removes fedora-cvs flag. (This is especially nice because CVS > admin queue can be seen by a bugzilla query.) > 5) Owner checks in and builds. > > Effectively, this fedora-cvs flag eliminates the need for CVSSyncNeeded > entirely. You could also use the fedora-cvs flag with explicitly > instructions within any bug to do special requests, like: > "Please remove audacious-itouch. We made some mistake. Blah blah." > > Thoughts? Remove 2-4 and we're back to where we were. Why can't things stay that way? > This does not yet fix the review process yet (I'm working on that next), > but should make things smoother and easier in the CVS processing for > both contributors and admins. Please make it so that contributors have less things to worry about, not more. Otherwise this is going to scare people away. It's already discouraging to me. Regards, R. -- Fedora Extras contributor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DominikMierzejewski Livna contributor http://rpm.livna.org MPlayer developer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" -- 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
