RFC: Review with Flags (Version 4)

Hans de Goede j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl
Thu Feb 8 07:58:00 UTC 2007


Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:55:16 -0500
> wtogami at redhat.com (Warren Togami) wrote:
> 
>> Fedora Review Flag States
>> =========================
>> fedora-review BLANK
>> 	I want a review, or a past reviewer gave up.
>> fedora-review?
>> 	Under Review, ASSIGNED to reviewer
>> fedora-review-
>> 	Denied and needs work, NEEDINFO to owner
> 
> I would very much prefer if fedora-review - flag was used when the
> review was totally rejected only. Ie, the license was unacceptable, or
> the submitter decided to withdraw the submission. 
> 

+1

>> Review Process
>> ==============
>> 1. Review Request is filed
>> 	fedora-review is BLANK
>> 	Assigned to nobody
>> 2. Reviewer Takes a Request
>> 	fedora-review is ?
>> 	Assigned to reviewer
>> 3a. If review denied and needs work
>> 	Comment
>> 	fedora-review-
>> 	NEEDINFO to whoever needs to fix it.
> 
> I see no value in flipping between - and ? on the fedora-review flag.
> It doesn't provide any more information really. 
> It will often not get done by the submitter since they don't know they
> need to do so. 
> It's another bugzilla knob to change on almost every exchange between
> submitter and reviewer. 
> If it has a 'DENIED' email like it does now for the core reviews, it
> has a negative connotation and will make the submitter think they
> aren't getting anywhere and should just give up. 
> 

+1

It seems that most of us seem to think that way, but we cannot seem to 
get through to Warren. Warren why do you insist on this. Things were 
never done in FE this way. What problem with the old procedure are you 
trying to fix?

Regards,

Hans




More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list