Bug workflow page revised

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 08:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

> > If the ON_QA state isn't meaningful for Fedora then this state machine
> > probably needs some adjustment for that, but it's not insane on its
> > own terms.
> 
> The ON_QA / FAILS_QA loop doesn't make too much sense for Fedora as
> there is no paid QA group wired into this loop. 'QA' is the reporter. 
> 
> I think it should just be a simple setup as the reporter describes;
> reporters should be allowed to set bugs back to ASSIGNED from MODIFIED.

Ug, sorry - I'm thinking too much about Rawhide here. The ON_QA loop is
of course used for Fedora in stable release updates.

I think the question comes down to "should the onus / ability to return
a bug to ASSIGNED when it fails testing be on the reporter or maintainer
or both". Thoughts?
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net