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:
1. 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