Warren Togami wrote:
> Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>
>> Actually there are many cases in that the review got troubled
>> _after_ the bug was approved and the reviewer should have
>> a responsibility for the review request until the review process
>> ends (i.e. the bug is closed) completely IMO.
>>
>> Mamoru
>>
>
> Could you point at specific examples?
>
> Warren
Well, there are many cases. Anyway I suggest again that the
reviewer should check the review to the end with
responsibility until the reviewer imports the package
successfully and closes the bug correctly.
And... it is obvious that the person who _mainly_ has
to take action after the review passed is the submitter,
isn't it? Moreover I think that setting assingee as
reviewer, which explicitly shows the person who reviewed
the bug, makes it easier to trace the reviewes
_afterwards_ by bugzilla query or some other methods.
----------------------------------------------------------
* In not a few cases some other fedora contributors (mainly
sponsor members) point out the incompleteness of the
reviews, and in a very rare case, the other contributor
has to switch back from FE-ACCEPT to FE-REVIEW.
* Once the bug was closed successfully (or because the review
was rejected with some reason), however another issue is
found (or the reason the reviewer rejected the review is
resolved) and the bug has to be reopened.
* A submitter got troubled when trying to importing a package
by various reasons and asked the reviewer for a help
(well, this frequently occurs especially for new contributors,
i.e. a new contributor askes the reviewer, who is the sponsor
of the submitter for a help).
* The package the reviewer accepted will not build successfully
on buildsys and the package needs more fix. Some reasons are:
- Both the submitter and reviewer uses FC6, FC-devel.
- Both uses only i386 (this is usually), and it turns out the
mockbuild fails on x86_64 or ppc.
- Simply, the mockbuild for the package is not checked (note that
currently mockbuild is not forced on the review with some
reason)
* The submitter forgets to import the package or forgets to
close the bug (this is not unusual!) and the reviewer has to
ask the reviewer "what is going on?" and set NEEDINFO
from the reviewer...
A rare case (but I experienced) is:
* The submitter accidentally(?) imports the different version
of package, which leaves some issues the reviewer pointed out
unfixed.
and .. I may have saw some other issues...
--
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
