Conflicts in BFAV posts

karl.ramberg at chello.se karl.ramberg at chello.se
Mon Nov 15 08:01:59 UTC 2004


"Thomas Koenig" <tomkoenig at mindspring.com> wrote:

> Marcus, I see you've done a lot of reviews that resulted in conflicts.
> One of the more tedious parts of reviewing fixes is looking to see if
> they would regress some other change. Is there something special you are
> doing to check for conflicts in the BFAV posts?

I belive he is using ConflictChecker (It's on SqueakMap).
Doug made this to check for conflicts before putting stuff in the update
stream.

> 
> You asked:
> > Should we not add the conflict tag as a type tag for BFAV so posts 
> > with conflicts can be sorted under a conflicts tab. Fixes and 
> > enhancements with conflicts are a special condition and should be 
> > easily identified, and this would make BFAV easier to overview. Right 
> > now there is no way to seach for a post with conflicts.
> 
> I could make this change to BFAV if we really want it. However, it
> strikes me that "conflict" is orthoganal to the harvest status dimension
> that the tabs represent.  We've already added 'bugs' as another
> non-orthogonal aspect to the tabs.  Do we really want to continue that
> way?  The answer may very well be yes because bugs and posts with
> conflicts merit special attention. If so, would the order be bug,
> conficts, reviewed,approved, update, closed, all?  With a post being
> made a conflict unless it's in the approved, update, closed status?

A way of filtering out posts wich have conflicts
or who needs more work would be good. These posts are reviewed
but are in special need of attention and right now they lurk around
forever. Just closing them is often not satisfactory as they are not
rejected, yet, they just need some attention and massageing before 
going in. We could have a timeout of a couple of months on the 
conflict/needs more work status before we close the post.
To put these post in a special group would make them visible
and clear up the process quite a bit.

> The other way we have of filtering are the three (not quite) regular
> expressions: name, e-mail address and title.  We might sacrifice one of
> these (name and email are redundant for my purposes) and add logic to
> search on the labels.  This might allow us to search for conflicts (or
> any other tag we decide to add latter

Maybe just expand to search all labels not just the group labels would
do it ?
I'm not quite sure how to do that though....
Karl



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list