Process

[stéphane ducasse]

On 12 déc. 05, at 20:38, Ken Causey wrote:

> On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 21:49 +0100, Cees De Groot wrote:
>> On 12/11/05, Adrian Lienhard <adi at netstyle.ch> wrote:
>>> Ken argued that it would be better to track each step on Mantis. I
>>> think Stef's (see his reply below) means the same.
>>>
>>> How do we decide?
>>
>> Well, I think I sort of missed why it would be good to burden the
>> integration team with Mantis administrativia - if the proponents  
>> could
>> point out their arguments, we could sleep over it and then see how
>> everyone involved thinks :).
>
> I think it is extremely important that the entire process be  
> completely
> transparent.  To this end I believe it should be documented in one  
> place
> and for the moment the Mantis issue seems like the best place.
>
> I don't understand why you consider the following to be a burden:
>
> 1.  When the person who submits a 'fix' to the inbox submits it he
> includes the URL to the report in Mantis in the description.

ok easy
>
> 2.  The release team member that harvests the fix clicks that link.
>
>   2a. If the release team member is not already logged in (login  
> can be
> saved when logging in which sets a cookie and does not require you to
> relogin every time you go to the site) then he logs in.
>
> 3.  The release team member selects 'closed' from the 'Change Status
> To:' and hits the button.
>
> 4.  The release team member adds a quick note explaining that this fix
> was harvested in update X and hits the button to mark the issue  
> closed.

This is what I was already doing.
I like the idea that we closed since lot of mistakes or problems can  
show up
at integration time.

>> Summary of 'my' position: it is not necessary to burden the
>> integration team with Mantis work; we could track everything just as
>> well by having the stewards team point to Mantis in their MC comments
>> and vice versa.
>
> But it's not tracked in one easy to find place.  Also I see the  
> problem
> that a single issue is not mapped necessarily to a single MC and so  
> the
> question then becomes do you annotate the same information in every
> associated MC.

Yes this is important since this way I can track all the slices in  
different mc packages
in case of problems ;)

Stef

>
> Ken