On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 00:02, Enrico Scholz wrote:
gauret(a)free.fr (Aurelien Bompard) writes:
> As an proposal, I think QA'ers should make sure they set the NEEDSWORK
> keyword and remove the QA keyword when they think the package should
> be improved.
I do not think that the current bugzilla based QA is very effectively
since there is needed lot of manual work and no way to enforce proper
usage. The current unstructured QA list is too complex and deters
people. This will not be changed by adding new keywords or specifying
their usage. IMO it will have the opposite effect since the process
becomes more and more complicated.
Well spoken. What you describe has been and
still is the main reason for
me having refrained from wanting to get involved.
[user interface]
IMO, the whole QA-process should be condensed into a simple
"state/transition-model" a package has to live through.
Such a model then should be reflected into a couple of web-forms,
allowing package uploads, check-boxes to send packages to their next
state etc. etc.
The question is, whether it would be worth to begin such an
implementation
for fedora.us or if it would be wasted time since it conflicts with Red
Hat's ideas about the Fedora Project.
Frankly speaking, I don't expect
anybody but RH to be able to implement
an alternative user interface to QA or clearly structured QA model for
various reasons ;)
Ralf