Process Change: Package Reviews with Flags

[Brian Pepple]

On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 19:28 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "HdG" == Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> writes:
> 
> HdG> I fully agree this new process is a PITA. The old process worked
> HdG> very well, what problems where there with the old process that
> HdG> this new process is trying to fix?
> 
> The fact that bugzilla creaks, groans and ultimately dies when faced
> with a blocker bug having 1500 dependencies.  The previous system just
> doesn't scale to all of the core review stuff.
> 
> Now, we could just treat the core review as an anomaly and go back to
> the old system for old reviews.  Or we could move forward with a
> refinement of the new process that works better.  Either way is fine
> with me as long as it works.
> 
> What's annoying is that people whining because something has changed.
> We've tried something new because we needed to.  The whole thing is a
> work in progress.  Deal.  If we never try anything new, we'll never do
> worse but we also won't ever do any better.

+1

/B
-- 
Brian Pepple <bpepple at fedoraproject.org>

gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B  CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070205/c9512699/attachment.sig>