I think this procedure should be good enough for both Mass Review and
general package review for an interim period, prior to a better design
in Package Database. I would like to ratify this process late Thursday
if possible, so please comment soon if you see problems.
Changes since Version 3:
========================
- Hybrid of "ASSIGNED to next actor" and "ASSIGNED to reviewer and use
NEEDINFO" as summarized in
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00252.html
- Explicit description of MODIFIED and CLOSED states
Fedora Review Flag States
=========================
fedora-review BLANK
I want a review, or a past reviewer gave up.
fedora-review?
Under Review, ASSIGNED to reviewer
fedora-review-
Denied and needs work, NEEDINFO to owner
fedora-review+
APPROVED, ASSIGNED to owner
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 the review.
- Assigned pointer to nobody if reviewer gave up.
- Assigned pointer to owner, after APPROVED and fedora-review+.
Bugzilla States
===============
In practice a bug sitting in these states matter less than the state of
the fedora-review flag. Participants are to follow these states as
suggested guidelines, but the fedora-review flag has the hard
requirements of behavior.
NEW ASSIGNED REOPENED
- There is no real distinction between these states. The flag and
Assigned to pointer is what matters.
- Note that ASSIGNED state is different from the Assigned pointer and
has no apparent relation for our purposes.
NEEDINFO
- To owner or other person who needs to fix something or provide needed
information in order to proceed further.
MODIFIED
- Owner seems to have fixed it, but it requires testing.
- OPTIONAL: you don't need to use this state. It could sit in ASSIGNED
where you do the same thing.
- *Special Case: During the Mass Review, the fix may go into rawhide and
the reviewer can verify both the CVS contents and package before giving
fedora-review+.
CLOSED RAWHIDE
- fedora-review+ is APPROVED, CVS procedure is done, and package is
built and confirmed to be done.
- *Special Case*: During the Mass Review, it is fine to set to CLOSED
RAWHIDE if it is confirmed to be fixed there. Please use MODIFIED prior
to CLOSED RAWHIDE to allow for a verification step.
Review Process
==============
1. Review Request is filed
fedora-review is BLANK
Assigned to nobody
2. Reviewer Takes a Request
fedora-review is ?
Assigned to reviewer
3a. If review denied and needs work
Comment
fedora-review-
NEEDINFO to whoever needs to fix it.
3b. fedora-review- and owner provides fix
fedora-review back to ?, to request re-review
4. If APPROVED
fedora-review+
Assign to owner
5. After fedora-review+
initiate the fedora-cvs request procedure
6. After fedora-cvs procedure
checkin
build
verify buids
set to CLOSED RAWHIDE
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
==============================
1. Changing fedora-review to ? auto-sets Assigned pointer to self. This
is taking the review.
2. Changing fedora-review to + should auto-set Assigned pointer to
owner. This is a little more difficult because it isn't always obvious
who the owner is (especially in Mass Reviews), but this may be the
reporter in regular reviews later.
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
