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

[Walter Bender]

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Simon Schampijer <simon at schampijer.de>wrote:

> 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
>

Makes even more sense now.

I wonder if there is some way (automated perhaps) to migrate the open
Sugar-related tickets on d.l.o to b.sl.o?

-walter

-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20110530/51bdadad/attachment.html>