[Proposal] Ring-based Packaging Policies

Kevin Fenzi kevin at scrye.com
Sun Feb 15 20:11:50 UTC 2015

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 13:32:57 -0600
Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu> wrote:

> >>>>> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> writes:


> KF> Additionally, FPC folks have done a great job recently (mostly due
> KF> to Tibbs hard work) in catching up with their backlog. Bundling
> KF> requests I would think would be much quicker than in the past.
> I appreciate the shoutout but James has been doing a ton of work too.

Thanks to both of you! (and the other FPC folks)
> Anyway, I think we're going to do much better with not letting things
> fall through the cracks, and to update when things don't get discussed
> in a meeting.  However, nothing is going to help the tickets sitting
> in needinfo.  We can't track down all of the requested information
> ourselves.
> KF> Some ideas about the review queue:
> Honestly I would really, really like to have a completely separate
> discussion about the review queue.  Getting things hung up on bundling
> isn't the best way to make easy progress on any of the other issues.

Sure. agreed. It just seemed like this proposal was two parts: relaxing
bunding and reviews. 
> KF> * Get some pool of people interested in being triage for the
> KF>   queue. ie, check that things build, run fedora-review on them,
> KF>   point submittors to how to get sponsored docs, close old reviews
> KF>   with no response, etc.
> Easy: Most ofhis stuff needs to be submitted initially.  I would ping
> and eventually close any review tickets where the submitter hasn't
> provided this information.
> And I have done this in the past; it's pretty thankless.  Now that I'm
> mostly done cleaning up FPC stuff I might be able to find some time to
> garden the review queue, but I certainly wouldn't get in the way of
> anyone else wanting to do it.

I think a lot of this could be automated. If our bugzilla to fedmsg
connector finally appears we could even do it then. ie, new review
submmited gets a fedmsg that a bot/script checks the new review, asks
for missing stuff, runs various checks, etc. 
> KF> * Moving reviews out of bugzilla has been proposed and some work I
> KF>   think has been done for an app to do that.
> Bugzilla is merely a sort-of-convenient place to put reviews and it
> provides something we can bodge into a workflow, but I don't think
> anyone would complain if it moved somewhere else and if more things
> were automated.  I suppose fedora-review itself could also grow a way
> to submit a reasonable review to bugzilla if someone hasn't already
> written a tool to do that.

Yeah, with a review app we could do a lot of checking up front and only
submit the actual review once it passed that. 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150215/0936d15e/attachment.sig>

More information about the devel mailing list