Warren Togami wrote:
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+.
why is this one optional but need info not? To me
fedora-review- and NEEDINFO should only be used if there is a dispute /
things are moving slow, normally a review can have quite a few quickly
following eachother comments where the reviewer and submitter work
things out I still see no use in this PING PONG-ing of the status and
fedora-review flag, this has been mentioned by me and several others
several times, why is no one listening or atleast a response is geiven
explaining what the perceived advantage of using NEEDINFO is, even if
the review is going smoothly. Even better make the NEEDINFO
fedora-review- step optional.
To me fedora-review- should be used with CLOSED WONTFIX if the package
is denied forever (for example if the license is no good) and NEEDINFO
should be used as it always is in bugzilla.
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
Can we PLEASE make step 3a and 3b optional, I only see extra mouse
clicks with little added value here.
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
Regards,
Hans
--
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
