Re: [BuildStream] Proposal: label name change: review -> verify

[Phillip Smyth <phillip smyth codethink co uk>]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:49:59AM +0200, Agustín Benito Bethencourt via Buildstream-list wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Monday, 23 July 2018 17:23:34 CEST Jim MacArthur via Buildstream-list 
> wrote:
> > On 23/07/18 16:05, Agustín Benito Bethencourt via Buildstream-list wrote:
> > > Dear BuildStream fans,
> > >
> > > there seem to be a confusion about what the label Review which is
> > > described in the policy[1] as a state label:
> > >
> > > "Review: items that are under review once the developer or contributor has
> > > finished it."
> > >
> > > I propose the change the label name from "Review" to "Verify" avoid any
> > > misunderstanding.
> > >
> > > The Status scale would be:
> > >
> > > * Backlog: default state on Gitlab so no label needed.
> > > * Todo: processed elements that should be done in the future.
> > > * Doing: WIP
> > > * Verify: items that has been finished but somebody else should go over
> > > them to check them before closing them.
> > > * Closed: items that has been processed and canceled, finished or no
> > > longer
> > > apply. Default state on Gitlab so no label needed.
> > >
> > > In summary, a ticket should be in Verify state when its acceptance
> > > criteria
> > > has been met and somebody else needs to check that it is the case.
> > >
> > > Please do not mistake it with... this ticket includes a MR that needs to
> > > be
> > > reviewed. Calling the attention of the reviewers in order to have your new
> > > code reviewed should be made through the MR, not the related issue.
> >
> > I'm fine with this, but can I suggest we start using the 'review' label
> > on MRs instead to indicate that they need review? I find it very useful
> > to be able to filter current issues for this to find work to review and
> > would like to continue doing so.
>
> I have suggested this in the past informally. I think that as a way for 
> reviewers to list those MR that are on their plate is a good approach.
>
> A complementary one would be to assign a MR to them so the receive a 
> notification and it is even easier to list the MR. With this second approach, 
> once reviewed, if the developer needs to act, the reviewer could assign him 
> back the MR. 
>
> In other words, use the ticketing system to ping the right person instead of 
> using the chat. 
I agree with this idea, 
It'd also be nice if there was some way to assign it to multiple people, 
so the person actively working on it could keep track of it as an item they were working on, 
whilst also having it assigned to a reviewer,
But i'm not sre if that's even possible

> Best Regards
-- 
Phillip Smyth, Software Engineer                           Codethink Ltd
Telephone: +44 7762 840 414        3rd Floor, Dale House, 35 Dale Street
https://www.codethink.co.uk/          Manchester, M1 2HF, United Kingdom
We respect your privacy.    See https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html
> _______________________________________________
> Buildstream-list mailing list
> Buildstream-list gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/buildstream-list