Suggestion for standardization

[Warren Togami]

Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> The package review process is utterly confusing to me, so it can't make
> much more sense to everyone else.
> 
> I propose that we adopt an "ACK" style system, where trusted
> contributors can ACK a package on review, two ACKs (maybe three?) will
> mark it as approved/sponsored. The trusted contributor providing the
> second ACK closes the bugzilla.

This is trying to solve the wrong problem.  The process is confusing not 
because of the requirements but because of the lack of tracking.

> 
> This presumes that the person submitting new packages for review is
> already listed as a Contributor with CVS access.

Why does this distinction matter?

> 
> If a trusted contributor "NACK"s a package, they have to provide a
> reason, and the package cannot be submitted to CVS until the problem
> causing the NACK is lifted, or the trusted contributor withdraws the
> NACK.
> 
> Ideally, I'd like to do this in bugzilla.redhat.com. Perhaps we can
> create a fedora-extras-QA component, and have new packages for review be
> assigned to that. This component would go to all trusted contributors
> (and/or fedora-extras-list) by default.
> 
> As is now, we're losing track of packages, no one knows when a review is
> sufficient. The old bugzilla fedora.us system worked well for this, and
> I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be adapted for FE.

Yes, the lack of database tracking is the key reason why the current 
process is confusing.  We all agree that a fairly easy to implement 
ideal would be a stripped down Bugzilla interface with tickets, state 
changes and resolution.  I don't know the status of the past proposed 
meetings between folks and dkl to make this happen.  Anyone know?

> 
> The Red Hat folks should already be comfortable with the ACK system, so
> it gives the best of both worlds.
> 
> I think assigning the "QA" group to the trusted contributors maps well
> to the added responsibility of that role. If you're willing to sponsor
> people, then you should be willing to QA new packages.
> 
> What do you think? If people like the idea, I could document it this
> weekend, and we can start following it.

NEW -> NEEDSWORK -> APPROVED -> COMPLETED
                     REJECTED (with reason given like legal)

I think ACK or NACK is an oversimplification.  We need explicit states 
something like below, and any of those steps can be skipped at any time. 
  When you change a state give reasons just like regular Bugzilla comments.

Tracking is the key to making the process less confusing.
More and clearer documentation would help.
A simplified Bugzilla interface would help.

Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com