On 08/02/2011 01:26 PM, Brad Figg wrote: > On 08/02/2011 01:12 PM, Dan Chen wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 16:04, Chase Douglas<[email protected]> >> 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.
That's interesting. How are custom bug series managed? I admin a few projects on LP, but I can't find any way of doing this. -- Chase -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
