On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 12:25:32PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> writes: > > PD> Basing the statistic on "anything in FE-NEW/unassigned than 2-3 > PD> weeks, activity/comments notwithstanding" means looking at all the > PD> reviews falling in that category to classify them... Anybody > PD> volunteering? > > I simply can't see the need. If you're reviewing something, set the > blocker to FE-REVIEW. If the blocker is at FE-NEW, anyone can come > along and take the package for review. Nothing else should matter. Indeed, FE-NEW is an important information, but my point is that it is not enough. Because under FE-NEW there are (simplifying) reviews in 3 states: 1) waiting for a reviewer input 2) waiting for the submitter to proceed 3) stuck for another reason (disagreement on packaging practice, discussion on wether it is a good idea to package it in extras or not...) >From the point of view of a reviewer wanting to do reviews, only the first one is interesting. In the mail that started the thread, I explained how I classified the FE-NEW package that were in the group of the packages in FE-NEW state with no change in 8 weeks, and I obtained that only about 1 package for 3 was in the state 1), waiting for reviewer input. So I think that it could be nice to have the possibility to add more information to submitted packages, such that potential reviewers don't spend too much time searching were they could be usefull. -- Pat -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
