DMB: Proposal for a different review process
chase.douglas at canonical.com
Tue Aug 2 20:38:28 UTC 2011
On 08/02/2011 01:26 PM, Brad Figg wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 01:12 PM, Dan Chen wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 16:04, Chase Douglas<chase.douglas at canonical.com> wrote:
>>> True, but progress sometimes means change. I think this system would
>>> work better, and if proven right it could be a model for other boards to
>>> adopt. If it's worse, then the DMB can easily switch back. I would also
>>> be happy to be a guinea pig for any process changes.
>> I echo Chase's opinion in this regard; we should remain flexible in
>> adapting our approval processes.
>> The only thing I add is that we should be cognizant of building a
>> timeout into the process using Launchpad so that applications don't
>> "spin indefinitely," e.g., "the stale five-digit Launchpad bug
> You could use the model the kernel team is using for tracking workflow for
> SRU kernels. We have a project set up and a set of custom series that are
> used for tracking the workflow. A "bot" runs at regular intervals sending
> out nags if necessary or changing the status of a workflow item as previous
> dependencies are met.
That's interesting. How are custom bug series managed? I admin a few
projects on LP, but I can't find any way of doing this.
More information about the ubuntu-devel