RFC: fedora.us bugzilla keywords

[Toshio]

On Sat, 2004-02-14 at 08:06, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > Much more feedback from the target group of these changes is necessary.
> 
> Yep.  But let's start experimenting with this stuff to get some hands-on
> experience how it feels.

Am I the target group? :-)  I just QA'd a package and tried out giving
it a first-review attachment.  I think it's significantly different than
the current approach and marginally more work.

I think the learning curve might be a tad more (Currently we submit a
new comment for everything: package submission & QA submission.  On top
of that we have to remember to set keywords.  In this scheme package
submission would be add attachment, upload file.  QA: edit attachment &
remember to set status.  And remember to set keywords when necessary.) 
Maybe the future would be substitute attachment statuses for changable
keywords (PUBLISH, NEEDSWORK, etc would be an attachment status. 
rh9/1/2 would be keyword.)

Most of the extra work with using attachments is because the bugzilla UI
isn't geared towards doing this.  For instance, I found I had to set the
attachment status as a separate step from submitting the attachment
(Would not happen if the original attachment was the package
submission.)  Additionally, the UI lends itself to confusion in this
case: where we currently have the submission form on the first bugzilla
form, in an attachment scheme we'd have to leave the  tempting Add
comment form blank and click to the add/edit attachment page to do our
work.

I think a new keyword is a simpler solution that gets us the bare
essentials of what we want.  The attachment is more elegant in it's
representation of the data, but we need to enhance the UI to make it
work well.

-Toshio
-- 
Toshio <toshio at tiki-lounge.com>