On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:52:09 -0400 (EDT) Kamil Paral <kparal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I have a feeling that I haven't explained properly that the core > > > of the proposal is a SOP change, and the web app workflow is just > > > a bonus to make it prettier. Is it clearer now? Do you still have > > > the same concerns? > > > > To an extent, yeah. I guess I just feel like the 'manual' version of > > this process is too complex to rely on, and would result in bugs > > that should be nominated not getting nominated. > > Hmm, I see. You might be right and that's why I always imagined it > with the tooling support. > > So, what if we kept everything intact and just changed our internal > QA process? 1. Any user proposes anything as a FE by tagging the bug > 2. One of QA members adds a Bugzilla comment (we can keep a template > somewhere) that basically asks: a) whether there is an available > developer willing to work on it in the required timeframe b) the > developer to provide some useful details, like the risks involved 3. > On the blocker bug meeting, the organizer goes through the list in > advance and pre-selects for discussion those bugs which already have > some developer feedback. Of course we can also include in the > discussion those bugs for which we know the developers are available > over IRC and can provide us with the information in real time. > Typically anaconda developers. The purpose is not to have > bureaucratic hurdles, but just make sure we receive some basic data > to work with, and to know the developers want to fix it. It doesn't > matter which channel it goes through. > > This is a fairly minimal change and all the burden is on us. It still > keeps the idea of avoiding useless discussions. While I agree that it could reduce the amount of time that we spend in blocker review meetings as a group, I'm not sure that the amount of time saved would be worth the overhead of doing all of that manually. Going through all of the proposed FE by hand and keeping track of which ones are ready for discussion is rather tedious and mind-numbing. Implementing the process changes in tooling would remove some of the human time requirements but we'd have to take the time to implement everything. I wonder if it would be better to wait until F20 for changes like this so that we have a better baseline for the amount of time spent in review meetings and how much we would gain by making the FE process more complicated with the added bureaucracy. Tim
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
