On 2010-11-02, Rob Lanphier wrote:
We'd then pick off the keywords as we step through the process (e.g. once it's reviewed, remove the "need-review" keyword). We could then generate three queries to get us the three queues I alluded to above:
- Issues with all three keywords. These are features that someone
would like to see deployed and launched, but needs to be reviewed first. 2. Issues with "need-deploy" and "need-enabled". These are extensions that have been reviewed, but need to be checked into the production branch 3. Issues with "need-enabled" only. These are extensions/features that just need action from ops.
Does this make sense? If so, I'll add the keywords and start documenting the process and retrofitting existing feature requests into this system.
This sounds like a good idea, however I think it would be better to only use a single keyword per state - and as each state is completed it is replaced by the next keyword. Otherwise you cannot just do a keyword search for "need-enabled" or "need-deploy" and find just the ones that can actually be processed.
Additionally, since this system seems to be targetted at extensions, I think it might be more intuitive to have them labelled as such, i.e.: - extension-need-review - extension-need-deploy - extension-need-enabled Currently I believe the need-review keyword is used for patches that need review aswell as extensions, so using a conflicting namespace could become confusing.
Finally, some extensions have a bug report open purely for their review and several open for being enabled/deployed - so this might be a good time to consolidate extension review/enable bugs.
Robert