[Sugar-devel] Sugar Labs bug tracker used by the OLPCA team?

[Simon Schampijer]

On 05/30/2011 02:32 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> to simplify OLPC-A's [1] ticket workflow we would like to use the SugarLabs
>> bug tracker for tickets related to Sugar and for Activities (the hardware
>> related issues and the issues of other components like kernel and drivers
>> will stay at the OLPC bug tracker [2]). Currently we use mainly the OLPC bug
>> tracker to keep track of failures and tasks for our releases. We think that
>> it makes sense to have the bug house keeping for Sugar and Activity bugs
>> happening at one place to not have duplicated bug reports on different bug
>> trackers.
>>
>
> +1 (if only because a bug has prevented me from being able to login and
> update tickets on dev.l.o for more than a year :P)

Often things sort out by themselves!

>>
>> We would like to do two things: add a keyword for our release to the
>> tickets we are interested in e.g. '11.2.0'. Furthermore, based on the Trac
>> ticket workflow [3] we would like to add a new field to the Sugar Labs bug
>> tracker: "Action Needed". This helps us to do QA and release management on
>> our tickets. We would simplify this a bit to the following states of the
>> "Action Needed" field:
>>
>> (set by developers):
>>   reproduce       --  we need to know how to reproduce the issue
>>   diagnose        --  diagnose root cause
>>   code            --  code a fix.
>>   review          --  sent a patch for review
>>
>
> +1
>
>>
>> (set by module maintainers):
>>   package         --  package it up as an RPM, an activity, etc.
>>   add to build    --  package needs to be added to a development build
>>
>
> +1
>
>>
>> (set by release manager):
>>   test in build   --  package in the recent build for testing
>>
>
> ? Which build would a release manager be referring to? (We "support"
> multiple builds these days.)

Ok, I guess that has not been clear enough. The "Action needed" field 
would be only used by the OLPCA team. The release manager would be here 
the release manager for the OLPCA release. At the moment Daniel for the 
11.2.0 release. Of course we could try to generalize this a bit more but 
I think this will get tricky quickly. To help making the distinction a 
bit better we could label the field as well "Action needed (OLPC)" or 
similar.

>> (set by QA):
>>   qa signoff      --  has been tested by the QA
>>   no action       --  and closed.
>>
>
> ? In the context of which release would the QA team be working?

Same here. This would be Sam triaging the bugs accordingly.

>> [...]
>>
>
> Except for clarifying the issue of multiple releases, I think this is a
> great idea.

Thanks for commenting and helping me to explain, hopefully, a bit clearer,
    Simon