RFC: fedora.us QA approval format

[Aurelien Bompard]

Hi all,

Erik and myself have been working on a QA check script to automate the QA
process at fedora.us. The script is getting quite correct, and can even be
useful ;-)
At the end of the checks, the script outputs a QA approval report, which can
be edited, gpg-signed, and pasted into bugzilla. The question is: what
should a QA approval look like to have all the minimum QA requirements and
be as parseable as possible by a publishing script for the release manager.
Erik and I have different minds on what has to be in the review, so we
though we should discuss it here, especially with the release managers.
I have setup a wiki page with a primary format proposal, and I invite you to
have a look at it and comment on it: http://www.fedora.us/wiki/QAFormat

If the script is to get into fedora-rpmdevtools, a complete newbie could
contribute meaningful QA's in a format which would be useful to the release
manager. This would lower the bar to QA, and standardize the process a
little bit more.

Please comment


Aurélien
-- 
http://gauret.free.fr   ~~~~   Jabber : gauret at amessage.info
If you wish to live wisely, ignore sayings -- including this one.