On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 00:02, Enrico Scholz wrote: > gauret@xxxxxxx (Aurelien Bompard) writes: > > > As an proposal, I think QA'ers should make sure they set the NEEDSWORK > > keyword and remove the QA keyword when they think the package should > > be improved. > > I do not think that the current bugzilla based QA is very effectively > since there is needed lot of manual work and no way to enforce proper > usage. The current unstructured QA list is too complex and deters > people. This will not be changed by adding new keywords or specifying > their usage. IMO it will have the opposite effect since the process > becomes more and more complicated. Well spoken. What you describe has been and still is the main reason for me having refrained from wanting to get involved. [user interface] IMO, the whole QA-process should be condensed into a simple "state/transition-model" a package has to live through. Such a model then should be reflected into a couple of web-forms, allowing package uploads, check-boxes to send packages to their next state etc. etc. > The question is, whether it would be worth to begin such an implementation > for fedora.us or if it would be wasted time since it conflicts with Red > Hat's ideas about the Fedora Project. Frankly speaking, I don't expect anybody but RH to be able to implement an alternative user interface to QA or clearly structured QA model for various reasons ;) Ralf
