RFC: Review with Flags (Version 5)

[Hans de Goede]

Warren Togami wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:02:10 +0000
>> jamatos at fc.up.pt (José Matos) wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday 20 February 2007 10:47:44 pm Jesse Keating wrote:
>>>>> I'd prefer the fedora-review- flag to be used in place of
>>>>> FE-DEADREVIEW (#201449), or some similar purpose.
>>>> +1
>>> +1
>>>
>>
>> I'll throw in another +1... this was my suggestion from one of the
>> previous versions as well. I don't think changing the flag on most
>> every comment has any advantage, and is likely to be forgotten by the
>> submitter, since they are less likely to know the procedure.
> 
> So you want:
> 1) FE-REVIEW to completely be equivalent to the meaning of fedora-review?
> 2) fedora-review- to mean, "Absolutely no, and you can't fix this to 
> make it a yes." ?
> 
> Possible reasons for denied fedora-review flag:
> - The package is unacceptable and the submitter is unwilling to fix it.
> - The package contains something that is forbidden.
> 

Yes exactly, except that there will ofcourse an exception or 2 to the 
absolutely no, like upstream changing the license into something 
suitable, but that can easily be handled by replacing the fedora-review- 
with fedora-review? again. Think of fedora-review- as FE_DEADREVIEW

> I'm tired of working on the pig.  If people are happy with this, let's 
> just use it until we can get rid of this process.  I hope FESCO can 
> ratify *something* this week Thursday.
> 

(Speaking for myself) I think we are all tired and you did a great job! 
Except for the mandatory toggling between fedora-review- and fedora-review?

Actually the last few weeks I've actually submitted a couple of new 
packages and these were reviewed using the new process without the 
toggling and it works like a charm.

Regards,

Hans