Process Change: Package Reviews with Flags

[Hans de Goede]

Christopher Stone wrote:
> On 1/30/07, Warren Togami <wtogami at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Warren Togami wrote:
>> > Further filing of review bugs is blocking on two issues:
>> >
>> > 1) We must decide whether or not the review should be assigned to the
>> > reviewer or package owner.  I believe package owner is more logical,
>> > because that person is accountable to doing the work.  The reviewer is
>> > already tracked by name in the flag itself, which too is logical.
>>
>> OK, it seems the only real drawback to "ASSIGNED to owner instead of
>> reviewer" is Tibbs' good point about being able to see it on 
>> frontpage.cgi.
> 
> Guys, I have to say this constant switching back and forth of ASIGNEE
> is not a good idea.  Not only is it a pain in the keister to keep on
> switching the ASIGNEE back and forth like a tennis ball, but if the
> packager forgets to do this, then the reviewer will never get e-mails
> on the bug.
> 

I fully agree this new process is a PITA. The old process worked very 
well, what problems where there with the old process that this new 
process is trying to fix?

And leave the bug open ? WTF? I don't want to have open bugs on my front 
page for completed package reviews. Unlike others I actually try to keep 
my open bug count close to 0.

This _really_ is a change for the bad. Why o why?

Aren't we all engineers, what happened to first defining the problem (I 
see no problem with the current process), then generating possible 
solutions and criteria for these (like simpleness, as little actions / 
mouse clicks as needed) and then match the solutions to the requirements 
and criteria?

THAT clearly didn't happen here!

Regards,

Hans