On Thursday 08 February 2007 06:55, 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. Just a quick note / implementation detail: > 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. 3. Bugzilla needs to be fixed not to send two mails every time a flag changes state. Random example: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-review/2007-February/msg01538.html http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-review/2007-February/msg01539.html -- 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
