On 08/02/2011 01:12 PM, Dan Chen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 16:04, Chase Douglas<chase.doug...@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
report."
Cheers,
-Dan
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.
For an example, take a look at any of the bugs referenced on the report:
http://people.canonical.com/~kernel/reports/kernel-sru-workflow.html .
Brad
--
Brad Figg brad.f...@canonical.com http://www.canonical.com
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
