This procedure is meant to be for *BOTH* Merge and regular package
reviews. Please comment. I hope we can finally ratify something during
this Thursday's FESCO meeting.
Changes since Version 4:
========================
- ASSIGNED to nobody if there is no reviewer yet.
- ASSIGNED remains on reviewer thereafter.
- Use NEEDINFO if someone other than the reviewer needs to take action.
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 reviewer
Assigned Pointer
================
- Assigned pointer to nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx if no reviewer yet.
- Assigned pointer to reviewer, during and after the 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, they all generally
mean "open".
NEEDINFO
- To owner or other person who needs to fix something or provide needed
information in order for the review to proceed.
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. This might seem confusing, but we can't
stop people from using this state. Yet another thing to simplify away
in the future ideal process.
- *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+
5. After fedora-review+
initiate the fedora-cvs request procedure
6. After fedora-cvs procedure (empty directories are in CVS)
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.
Possible Process Optimizations
==============================
Changing fedora-review to ? auto-sets Assigned pointer to self. This
would require code changes to Bugzilla itself. Unclear whether this is
worth doing or not.
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
