Hey Ghee, On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 12:26 +0100, Ghee Teo wrote: > Thanks for the reply. Here is how I interprete the review/approval > process: > Just spell these out in pseudo code to be clear (for myself) :)
There is a 3rd (and perhaps a 4th) scenario actually, and I like these ones most: (0a) Simple patch - submit the patch to bugzilla report and let the upstream maintainer review it => no jds-review needed (0b) Complex patch - submit to jds-review for opinions - work with upstream maintainer to get it upstream > 2 possible scenarios: > ============== > (1) Simple patch (One that the submitter has confidence in) > - If simple patch then > submit patch for review and commit patch at the same time > if questions/remarks then > answer them > if changes requires or rejected by category owner then > undo commit and redo patch and resubmit patch That sounds right, but only for patches that don't/cannot go upstream (e.g. branding). > (2) Complex patch (One that submitter looking for input from reviewers) > If complex patch then > submit patch for review > wait for approval from category owner or questions/remarks > > if approved by category owner then > commit patch > else if rejected by category owner then > resubmit patch Again, sounds correct, but try to get the patch upstream. > if questions/remarks then > answer them > if changes requires then > redo patch and resubmit patch > else if timeout (3 working days) > commit patch > > > So if seems to me in scenario (1), category owner approval is a > formality. The approval itself is, the review should not be. > If these are your intended interpretation, then I am pretty happy :) I'm glad you're happy (: Laca
