RFC: Review with Flags (Version 4)

[Hans de Goede]

Warren Togami wrote:
> I think this procedure should be good enough for both Mass Review and 
> general package review for an interim period, prior to a better design 
> in Package Database.  I would like to ratify this process late Thursday 
> if possible, so please comment soon if you see problems.
> 

First of all let me say that in general I like this and that I'm glad 
this is being refined and people are listened too.

<snip>

> 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
Can't we make this part (3a and 3b) :
> 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
Optional? For many reviews esp. of new packages there are one or 2 small 
items which need fixing which get fixed very fast, to me this is just 
unnecessary work in those case. Now for more complicated packages, 
reviews moving slowly this is a good idea. So why not make this optional 
and let the reviewer decide wether todo step 3a or not (and when 3a is 
done the owner is ofcourse oblidged todo 3b).

> 4. If APPROVED
>     fedora-review+
>     Assign to owner
> 5. After fedora-review+
>     initiate the fedora-cvs request procedure
> 6. After fedora-cvs procedure
>     checkin
>     build
>     verify buids
>     set to CLOSED RAWHIDE
> 

Regards,

Hans



p.s.

Who gets to decide on what the final procedure will be. Currently the 
decission making process is very unclear. Thus FESCO get to vote on 
this, or some other committee?