Thursday, February 22nd, 2007 FESCO ratified this as the new package
review process for *ALL* reviews. This includes both Merge Reviews and
New Package Reviews. Next I need to find all places in the Wiki that
need updating...
STOP USING THE TRACKER BUGS. Just leave them as-is. FESCO is thinking
about what to do about them during next week's meeting.
Changes since Version 5:
========================
- fedora-review- is equivalent to FE-DEADPACKAGE. Only set to - if the
package cannot be fixed and thus is no longer in consideration for
reviews. Possible reasons may include:
- license or other legal problems
- other reasons that cannot be solved soon
- fedora-review? is equivalent to FE-REVIEW. Use this for any review in
process. If you ask the owner to make changes, keep it set to ?, and
use NEEDINFO on the owner.
- fedora-review+ is equivalent to FE-ACCEPT
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-
This review cannot proceed, dropped for legal or other issues.
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. I'm sorry if you're upset about this.
- *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 consider using
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
NEEDINFO to whoever needs to fix it.
3b. NEEDINFO, owner provides fix
Undo NEEDINFO status
4. If APPROVED
fedora-review+
5. After fedora-review+
initiate the fedora-cvs request procedure
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure
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.
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
