Re: Unresponsive packager process and reviews

2017-03-13 Thread Ralf Corsepius 

On 03/13/2017 03:23 PM, Parag Nemade wrote:

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Ralf Corsepius  wrote:

On 03/13/2017 10:38 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:


Is this not enough [1] or you want to make the reviews part of orphaning
process?




[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews



The latter. [1] is not enough, because it leaves stalled reviews as
"assigned" with most persons (esp. the package submitter) not noticing it.



From that page I think 1.1.2 is very much clear where I believe
reviewers are knowing all the policies that we have for Fedora
packaging and they can take actions given there but for 1.1.1 package
submitter need to know this policy page so that he can himself or
request someone to clear the fedora-review? flag. I don't think we
can/should enforce any criteria here to clear stalled reviews
automatically.


I think we need some kind of timeout automatism, e.g. to reassign all 
reviews requests whose reviewers were inactive for some time (say 2 or 4 
weeks).



Any packager can triage these stalled reviews as per
policy [1].


In cases of people who were AWOL'ed by FESCO, I would expect this to be 
part of the "closing down the FAS-account" job.


One technical and management problem also exist: FAS accounts and BZ 
accounts are not connected at all.



Is this policy page [1] not approved by Fedora Packaging Committee already?

I don't know, but don't think this page is FPCs job at all.

Ralf

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Unresponsive packager process and reviews

2017-03-13 Thread Parag Nemade 
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Ralf Corsepius  wrote:
> On 03/13/2017 10:38 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>
>> Is this not enough [1] or you want to make the reviews part of orphaning
>> process?
>
>
>> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
>
>
> The latter. [1] is not enough, because it leaves stalled reviews as
> "assigned" with most persons (esp. the package submitter) not noticing it.
>

From that page I think 1.1.2 is very much clear where I believe
reviewers are knowing all the policies that we have for Fedora
packaging and they can take actions given there but for 1.1.1 package
submitter need to know this policy page so that he can himself or
request someone to clear the fedora-review? flag. I don't think we
can/should enforce any criteria here to clear stalled reviews
automatically. Any packager can triage these stalled reviews as per
policy [1].

Is this policy page [1] not approved by Fedora Packaging Committee already?

Regards,
Parag

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
[1.1.1] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Reviewer_not_responding
[1.1.2] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Submitter_not_responding
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Unresponsive packager process and reviews

2017-03-13 Thread Ralf Corsepius 

On 03/13/2017 10:38 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:

Is this not enough [1] or you want to make the reviews part of orphaning
process?



[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews


The latter. [1] is not enough, because it leaves stalled reviews as 
"assigned" with most persons (esp. the package submitter) not noticing it.


Ralf

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Unresponsive packager process and reviews

2017-03-13 Thread Vít Ondruch 


Dne 11.3.2017 v 19:06 Orion Poplawski napsal(a):
> Christopher Meng (cicku) was declared unresponsive a while back.
> However, there are still a lot of reviews associated with him:
>
> Submitted by him (60):
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=ASSIGNED_status=POST_status=MODIFIED_status=ON_DEV_status=ON_QA_status=VERIFIED_status=RELEASE_PENDING=Fedora=Package%20Review=i%40cicku.me=1=substring_id=7172450=Fedora_format=advanced
>
>
> Assigned to him (23):
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=ASSIGNED_status=POST_status=MODIFIED_status=ON_DEV_status=ON_QA_status=VERIFIED_status=RELEASE_PENDING=Fedora=Package%20Review=i%40cicku.me_to1=1=substring_id=7172451=Fedora_format=advanced
>
>
> It seems like we need to have a procedure for dealing with reviews for
> unresponsive maintainers as well.
>
>

Is this not enough [1] or you want to make the reviews part of orphaning
process?


Vít



[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Unresponsive packager process and reviews

2017-03-11 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:06:18AM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Christopher Meng (cicku) was declared unresponsive a while back.
> However, there are still a lot of reviews associated with him:
> 
> Submitted by him (60):
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=ASSIGNED_status=POST_status=MODIFIED_status=ON_DEV_status=ON_QA_status=VERIFIED_status=RELEASE_PENDING=Fedora=Package%20Review=i%40cicku.me=1=substring_id=7172450=Fedora_format=advanced

Better search:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=ASSIGNED_status=POST_status=ON_DEV_status=ON_QA_status=VERIFIED_status=RELEASE_PENDING=Fedora=Package%20Review=i%40cicku.me=1=substring_id=7172480=Fedora_format=advanced

> Assigned to him (23):
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=ASSIGNED_status=POST_status=MODIFIED_status=ON_DEV_status=ON_QA_status=VERIFIED_status=RELEASE_PENDING=Fedora=Package%20Review=i%40cicku.me_to1=1=substring_id=7172451=Fedora_format=advanced
> 
> It seems like we need to have a procedure for dealing with reviews
> for unresponsive maintainers as well.

... or just extend the unresponsive maintainer procedure to apply to reviews
too, and just reassign all reviews as NEW/nobody when the reviewer is declared
unresponsive.

Review requests are more complicated. My initial comment was to be that they
are not a problem, but random sampling shows that people try to ping the
submitter in the review tickets, and of course get no answer. So we should
do something to avoid this waste of time.

Maybe we should drop a comment in each of those, something like:

  The submitter of this review request has been declared unresponsive
  (fesco ticket link), and this review is effectively dead.
  Anyone who wants to pick up this package, should open a new review
  request ticket, and close this one as DUPLICATE of the new one.

An easier thing would be to make those bugs block FE-DEADREVIEW but that's 
fairly
easy to miss, and not as clear, especially to newcomers.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Unresponsive packager process and reviews

2017-03-11 Thread Ralf Corsepius 

On 03/11/2017 07:06 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:

Christopher Meng (cicku) was declared unresponsive a while back.


AFAICT, his account was closed.


It seems like we need to have a procedure for dealing with reviews for
unresponsive maintainers as well.


Cf. the thread starting at:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/X7VICURDHRH2K5G26SR674LTRCQVOSVB/

I feel, you are complaining about the same issue (AWOLs not being 
completely processed), but from a different angle.


Ralf

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Unresponsive packager process and reviews

2017-03-11 Thread Orion Poplawski 
Christopher Meng (cicku) was declared unresponsive a while back. 
However, there are still a lot of reviews associated with him:


Submitted by him (60):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=ASSIGNED_status=POST_status=MODIFIED_status=ON_DEV_status=ON_QA_status=VERIFIED_status=RELEASE_PENDING=Fedora=Package%20Review=i%40cicku.me=1=substring_id=7172450=Fedora_format=advanced

Assigned to him (23):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=ASSIGNED_status=POST_status=MODIFIED_status=ON_DEV_status=ON_QA_status=VERIFIED_status=RELEASE_PENDING=Fedora=Package%20Review=i%40cicku.me_to1=1=substring_id=7172451=Fedora_format=advanced

It seems like we need to have a procedure for dealing with reviews for 
unresponsive maintainers as well.



--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA DivisionFAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane  or...@cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301  http://www.cora.nwra.com
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org