[etoys-dev] jira re-arrangement

[Timothy Falconer]

On Aug 24, 2009, at 6:30 PM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

> On 24.08.2009, at 23:56, Timothy Falconer wrote:
>
>>> Hmm, putting the change to the update stream is so far limited to
>>> certain users.  (And "works for me" just by somebody often is not  
>>> the
>>> right reason to "Close" an item.)
>>
>> I think my initial process page said that software team members  
>> verify and push to the stream (#13):
>
> you meant #14?

Yes.

>> http://confluence.immuexa.com/display/sq/Process
>>
>> Priorities and code review are the primary function of the software  
>> team.
>
>
> We should clarify how to "submit code" in step #12.

Done.

> Also, when resolving in step 12, I guess the resolution should be  
> "ongoing"? The options are Complete, Reject, Duplicate, Unclear,  
> Cannot Reproduce, Ongoing, Test Passed, Test Failed. So "ongoing"  
> would mean "ready for testing"?

When you click "resolve", the word "complete" means, "my work is  
complete".  With small groups, we simply re-open the issue when  
someone's test doesn't pass.   (I never use "test passed" and "test  
failed").


> And in step 14, how do we mark a closed issue that is not yet put to  
> the update stream"? Or should rather the tester change the  
> resolution to "test passed", and the developer who pushes an update  
> to the stream closes the issue?

Issues should be closed by someone on the software team at the same  
time as pushing the changeset.  I've modified the process page to make  
this clearer.


> As for the other resolutions, who is going to close these issues,  
> and when?
>
> - Bert -
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> etoys-dev mailing list
> etoys-dev at squeakland.org
> http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/etoys-dev