motu-release process (was: Re: Sponsorship Queue Process)

[Stefan Potyra]

Hi Brian,

Am Thursday 27 August 2009 19:59:49 schrieb Brian Murray:
[..]
>
> From this I get the impression that the definition of each bug status
> changes if the bug is in the sponsorship queue, which is exactly the
> confusion I want to avoid.  The bug statuses should mean the same thing
> as much as possible across the distribution to minimize the potential
> for errors and misunderstanding.

I think bug statuses meaning the same thing for each queue would be ideal. For 
motu-release, we use confirmed to denote that a FFe is granted, and invalid 
to mean it was denied. FFe bugs usually start at new.

For the interpretation of FFe's this seems sane to me (it's a new request, 
which turns out to be either invalid or gets confirmed by motu-release). 
However (apart from the occasional bug starting at confirmed) sometimes 
motu-release is subscribed to existing bugs. Exactly there this scheme breaks 
(the bug is of course _not_ invalid, just because the FFe was denied as 
motu-release deems that a targeted fix is more appropriate than a new 
upstream version).

Basically what I need from FFe bugs is a way to 
* see which FFe's are granted already (I don't regular look at these)
* see which FFe's are still in my queue

Any good idea how to improve our usage of bug statuses?

Cheers,
    Stefan.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20090827/88b1691c/attachment.pgp