On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:24:43 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > NEEDINFO or fedora-review- should be used when the new information from > the submitter or the reviewer who should respond is lacking, and currently > I use NEEDINFO status for this purpose. For review request which is rather > active and in which the submitter and the reviewer are communitating well, > NEEDINFO or fedora-review is not needed. Usually I set the status as > NEEDINFO when the new information lacks for one week. The packages from "Merge Review" are included in the distribution already. Some pkg maintainers apply changes within internal fedora cvs shortly after a reviewer had posted comments. Ongoing review activity doesn't block the maintainers from building their packages and from publishing them. There is no need to "reject" anything temporarily with the help of special flags intead of with your own words. Unless you find any justification to pull a package from the distribution, there is absolutely no need to increase the bureaucracy inside bugzilla and to lower the s/n ratio in bugzilla mails. Let's continue with using bugzilla for simple communication between packager and reviewer(s) without the requirement to turn too many knobs. Only the flag for the approval makes sense IMO. For reminders and occasional ticket status, stuff like NEEDINFO is enough. WRT new contributors: The more bureaucracy, the more questions are raised and require even additional communication outside bugzilla. New contributors and silent observers shake their head in disbelieve, because we make something more complex than it needs to be. Moving the cvs branch requests from the Wiki into bugzilla tickets is a good idea. -- 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
