On 2010-11-02, Rob Lanphier wrote: > We'd then pick off the keywords as we step through the process (e.g. > once it's reviewed, remove the "need-review" keyword). We could then > generate three queries to get us the three queues I alluded to above: > 1. Issues with all three keywords. These are features that someone > would like to see deployed and launched, but needs to be reviewed > first. > 2. Issues with "need-deploy" and "need-enabled". These are > extensions that have been reviewed, but need to be checked into the > production branch > 3. Issues with "need-enabled" only. These are extensions/features > that just need action from ops. > > Does this make sense? If so, I'll add the keywords and start > documenting the process and retrofitting existing feature requests > into this system.
This sounds like a good idea, however I think it would be better to only use a single keyword per state - and as each state is completed it is replaced by the next keyword. Otherwise you cannot just do a keyword search for "need-enabled" or "need-deploy" and find just the ones that can actually be processed. Additionally, since this system seems to be targetted at extensions, I think it might be more intuitive to have them labelled as such, i.e.: - extension-need-review - extension-need-deploy - extension-need-enabled Currently I believe the need-review keyword is used for patches that need review aswell as extensions, so using a conflicting namespace could become confusing. Finally, some extensions have a bug report open purely for their review and several open for being enabled/deployed - so this might be a good time to consolidate extension review/enable bugs. Robert _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
