RFC: Review with Flags (Version 4)

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Hans de Goede wrote:
> 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
Rather I think that if the review must be rejected for some
reason the review should be _CLOSED_ with CANTFIX or WONTFIX.
Why should be the review left open?
Open bug means that this bug is being in process (nor no
one are taking action on the bug). So when no one can expect
that the bug (review) proceeds anymore (with some reason),
the bug must be closed.

> 
>>> 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
> 
And +1

Mamoru