Process Change: Package Reviews with Flags

[Hans de Goede]

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.
> 

That much I understand, but why then not only change blocker bug to 
flags and leave the rest as is? Its the ASSIGNEE bouncing, ASSIGNED <-> 
NEEDINFO ping-pong in the current process that annoys and confuses people.

> 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.
> 

You should know me long enough to know that I'm not a winer, also lets 
please not make this personal. I've started screaming loudly about this, 
because I don't like it and have heard from many other people that they 
don't like it either (Chris Stone, Ralph Corsepius, Michael Schwendt to 
name a few). The new process annoys and confuses people and makes the 
barrier to entry for new packages and for new maintainers higher, which 
is a BAD thing.

Let me add to that that I'm very happy to see that as a result of my 
(and others) "wining" the process is being refined for the better. Also 
if the people making the changes want to avoid such "wining" in the 
future, they should think things through and properly communicate them 
before implementing them.

Regards,

Hans