Warren Togami wrote:
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.
First of all let me say that in general I like this and that I'm glad
this is being refined and people are listened too.
<snip>
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
Can't we make this part (3a and 3b) :
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
Optional? For many reviews esp. of new packages there are one or 2 small
items which need fixing which get fixed very fast, to me this is just
unnecessary work in those case. Now for more complicated packages,
reviews moving slowly this is a good idea. So why not make this optional
and let the reviewer decide wether todo step 3a or not (and when 3a is
done the owner is ofcourse oblidged todo 3b).
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
Regards,
Hans
p.s.
Who gets to decide on what the final procedure will be. Currently the
decission making process is very unclear. Thus FESCO get to vote on
this, or some other committee?
--
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
