Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:22 AM Julen Landa Alustiza < jla...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > The RFE commit have been merged on master: > > https://pagure.io/pagure/c/31280551ec2fdf282152abae2ff9d44f20faaf92?branch=master > > I'll notify here once we release 5.9 and upgrade pagure.io with it. > Awe

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

The RFE commit have been merged on master: https://pagure.io/pagure/c/31280551ec2fdf282152abae2ff9d44f20faaf92?branch=master I'll notify here once we release 5.9 and upgrade pagure.io with it. 19/12/5 10:06(e)an, Kamil Paral igorleak idatzi zuen: On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:33 AM Julen Landa Alust

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:33 AM Julen Landa Alustiza < jla...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > 19/12/4 15:34(e)an, Kamil Paral igorleak idatzi zuen: > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 10:22 PM Tim Flink wrote: > >> Has anyone poked at scoping out the work required for either the bot or >> the enhancements we

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

19/11/28 17:13(e)an, Adam Williamson igorleak idatzi zuen: > On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 13:29 +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: >> What are your thoughts? Does the proposal sound reasonable? Would you >> change something? Would you use a different backend system? Have I >> forgotten something important? Feedba

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

19/12/4 15:34(e)an, Kamil Paral igorleak idatzi zuen: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 10:22 PM Tim Flink > wrote: > > Has anyone poked at scoping out the work required for either the > bot or > the enhancements we would need for pagure? > > > Lukáš Brabec looked int

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 5:15 PM Geoffrey Marr wrote: > Kamil, > > I wasn't intending the time we would get together each week for voting, > instead for time spent discussing and clarifying any discrepancies we may > have with the bugs. By the time we would have this 30 or so minute > get-together,

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 10:22 PM Tim Flink wrote: > Has anyone poked at scoping out the work required for either the bot or > the enhancements we would need for pagure? > Lukáš Brabec looked into it, and creating a new Pagure ticket is a matter of a few lines of code (already written). Extending

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 8:29 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > I pretty much agree with all the points you made on the various systems. > That said, I think this is kinda a bad time to be doing this change. > There's a lot of... (grumblings? rumors? idle converstations?) about the > various bug/issue/source

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 08:13:48 -0800 Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 13:29 +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: > > What are your thoughts? Does the proposal sound reasonable? Would > > you change something? Would you use a different backend system? > > Have I forgotten something important? Fee

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 01:29:40PM +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: > We've talked about replacing blocker bug review meetings with something > else for a long time. The meeting has an upside of a higher communication > bandwidth, but also a downside of requiring participants to be available at > the same

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

Kamil, I wasn't intending the time we would get together each week for voting, instead for time spent discussing and clarifying any discrepancies we may have with the bugs. By the time we would have this 30 or so minute get-together, our votes would already be cast in Pagure. We would make sure we

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 1:18 PM Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > > Abstain is useful if there are conflicts of interest, or to indicate no >> preference either way, or as a result of confusion. I chock up more than >> one abstain vote as an indicator the proposal isn't persuasive enough. >> Indeed if everyo

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:47 PM Geoffrey Marr wrote: > Kamil, > > Thanks for working on this. I am glad we are considering something > different here, as the current process is not perfect. > > Personally, of the suggested options, I think that using Pagure is my > preferred option. I think of th

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 4:19 PM pmkel...@frontier.com wrote: > > > On 12/2/19 07:03, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > > > I'm not familiar with kanban/taiga. What is the benefit over using > standard > > (Pagure) tickets? > > > > > > The kanban/taiga is what they use at Fedora Magazine. A Writer starts by

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 4:02 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > I want to speak up in defense of synchronous meetings. I acknowledge > that the timing is rather convenient for me personally (it's 12–3pm my > time), which makes it easier for me to see the upsides. > > The big benefit is the high bandwidth disc

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

> Abstain is useful if there are conflicts of interest, or to indicate no > preference either way, or as a result of confusion. I chock up more than > one abstain vote as an indicator the proposal isn't persuasive enough. > Indeed if everyone votes to abstain, that means the vote was premature/ill

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

Kamil, Thanks for working on this. I am glad we are considering something different here, as the current process is not perfect. Personally, of the suggested options, I think that using Pagure is my preferred option. I think of the available options, it allows for the easiest collaboration betwee

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 4:51 AM Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > > > >> >The VOTE must be only +1 or -1. Indecisive people do not need to put >> that down, they just can do nothing. >> >> Haha. In defense of 0, there is a long history of "abstain" votes. There >> may be a proposal that someone doesn't suppo

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On 12/2/19 07:03, Kamil Paral wrote: I'm not familiar with kanban/taiga. What is the benefit over using standard (Pagure) tickets? The kanban/taiga is what they use at Fedora Magazine. A Writer starts by creating an Issue proposing a new article for the magazine. There is a back and for

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

I want to speak up in defense of synchronous meetings. I acknowledge that the timing is rather convenient for me personally (it's 12–3pm my time), which makes it easier for me to see the upsides. The big benefit is the high bandwidth discussion. I have been in plenty of meetings where someone init

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 10:40 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 5:30 AM Kamil Paral wrote: > > > > Pagure > > *** > > > > This is very similar to the Bugzilla description. For each proposed > blocker, we (auto-)create a ticket in a "fedora-blockers" project, for the > purpose

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

> >The VOTE must be only +1 or -1. Indecisive people do not need to put > that down, they just can do nothing. > > Haha. In defense of 0, there is a long history of "abstain" votes. There > may be a proposal that someone doesn't support, but also doesn't want to > stand in the way of progression, i

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:59 AM Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > 7. People vote by submitting comments containing VOTE +1/0/-1 on a > separate line (and including any justification or feedback they wish in the > comment as well; the command has to simply be on its own line so that we > can detect it well).

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 5:30 AM Kamil Paral wrote: > > Pagure > *** > > This is very similar to the Bugzilla description. For each proposed blocker, > we (auto-)create a ticket in a "fedora-blockers" project, for the purpose of > a blocker discussion. We interlink the bug and the ticket. Wh

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 9:46 AM Lukas Brabec wrote: > > 2. Blocker Bugs App (BBA) detects the new blocker and creates a new > ticket in Pagure in the "fedora-blockers" project, then updates the bug to > link to this ticket (a new comment, a Links entry). It shows both the bug > and the discussion

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:29 PM Frantisek Zatloukal wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 1:31 PM Kamil Paral wrote: > >> >> 5. Once some kind of understanding of the issue is formed, a privileged >> member (e.g. a member of @fedora-qa FAS group) can start the vote by >> including a command in h

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

Thanks for the proposal, Kamil! On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 1:31 PM Kamil Paral wrote: > Blocker Bugs App (DIY solution) > ** This sounds like a lot of work on features that are already implemented elsewhere. > Mailing lists > For the reasons you posted, I don't think

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 1:31 PM Kamil Paral wrote: > > 5. Once some kind of understanding of the issue is formed, a privileged > member (e.g. a member of @fedora-qa FAS group) can start the vote by > including a command in his comment, e.g. "START VOTE" on a separate line. > (Note that this is ju

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 5:59 PM Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > > 7. People vote by submitting comments containing VOTE +1/0/-1 on a >> separate line (and including any justification or feedback they wish in the >> comment as well; the command has to simply be on its own line so that we >> can detect it w

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 5:14 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > So overall I agree with a lot of what you wrote. It does cause me to > wonder if writing some kind of plugin/extension for Pagure, or just > writing the functionality into the blockerbugs app, might possibly be > *less* work than writing an

Re: Proposal: Asynchronous blocker review process (using Pagure)

On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 13:29 +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: > What are your thoughts? Does the proposal sound reasonable? Would you > change something? Would you use a different backend system? Have I > forgotten something important? Feedback welcome. So overall I agree with a lot of what you wrote. It