#493: Trac: add status 'please review'
------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: jblayloc | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: *general* | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords: INSPIRE
------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by jblayloc):
To summarize my understanding of your suggestions, Tibor, I think that you
think it may be a good idea to:
* have status in_review plugged into the workflow after in_merge
* use informal channels as much as possible to get people to review your
stuff
* or barring that (or possibly in addition to that, or possibly just for
documentary purposes) use a tag in the style of review:jlavik
* people should probably get e.g., an RSS feed of tickets tagged
review:myusername and cope with them as appropriate (either reviewing or
redirecting to someone more appropriate)
And, as a matter of protocol, I'm guessing that the reviewer should be the
person to take things from in_review to in_merge?
I agree with all of these things. I think that in a geographically
distributed group like ours, doing everything we can to expose the various
communication flows in relatively discoverable, public fashion has real
value. I think that this would help.
The only question I still have is what is the pragmatic difference (in
terms of time-to-merge, for example) between things which a reviewer puts
in_merge and things which the author puts in_merge?
--
Ticket URL: <http://invenio-software.org/ticket/493#comment:7>
Invenio <http://invenio-software.org>
