On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Benjamin Mahler <benjamin.mah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't forget that folks accidentally do things all the time in JIRA, or in life :) eh eh I never forget that > so if > you fence off the ability to go back you make an accident permanent, or > does JIRA have some undo support I'm unaware of? > I am pretty sure that we can alter the state of a given issue to move it back to 'Open' (even if, as you pointed out, we need to take a detour via 'in progress') - but let me do some investigation and figure this one out. Thanks! > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Marco Massenzio <ma...@mesosphere.io> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Benjamin Mahler < > > benjamin.mah...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > To go from "accepted" to "open" you need to go through "in progress"? > > > > > > That part wasn't changed from before? > > Anyways, why would you ever want to do that? > > > > This means that, at some point we looked at something, thought we would > > want to do that (at some point in future) then, eventually, changed our > > mind (we no longer want to do it) but will think some more at some other > > future point and (maybe) re-accept it? > > > > This seems an unlikely scenario? more likely, you figured out it wasn't a > > good idea after all (or maybe it turned out to be a duplicate - or some > > other features took the problem away) and we can move directly to > > "resolved". > > > > Granted, we can obviously add an "unaccept" transition, but I would much > > prefer to keep this simple to avoid confusing people. > > (and, as you correctly pointed out, there is a path back to 'Open' if we > > really want to). > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Marco Massenzio <ma...@mesosphere.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks, everyone, for your suggestions: quick feedback was much > > > > appreciated! > > > > > > > > I've updated the Google Doc, I think we're in good shape, I'll wait > > until > > > > Friday to hear if anyone has still objections, then I'll work with > Jake > > > > (thanks for offer to help!) to implement it. > > > > > > > > *Marco Massenzio* > > > > *Distributed Systems Engineer* > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Marco Massenzio < > ma...@mesosphere.io> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Till Toenshoff <toensh...@me.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Very helpful Marco… I like the idea of tightening our JIRA > workflow. > > > > >> > > > > >> +1 removing “closed" > > > > >> > > > > > done > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 “reviewable” back to "in progress" — to me this is a very > helpful > > > > >> signal for longer lasting comment addressing > > > > >> > > > > > done > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 making sure that “accepted" is the gatekeeper and includes > > > assigning > > > > >> the maintainer as a default shepherd — should we even go as far as > > to > > > > >> prevent “assigning” issues that have not gotten “accepted” and > > > > “shepherd > > > > >> assigned” ? > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > let's not gate fixing the workflow to my achieving the next level > of > > > > > Jira-Wizardry :) > > > > > the goal can be achieved by education (and enforcement of the > policy) > > > > > > > > > > I am totally in favor of asking folks NOT to work on non-accepted > > > stories > > > > > (or, conversely, if they come across issues that are NOT accepted, > > but > > > > want > > > > > to do work and/or investigation, to assign to themselves and move > to > > > > > "accepted" state). > > > > > > > > > > +1 removing “reopened" as it has no extra value for us > > > > >> > > > > >> it's history! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Resolving without accepting to me sounds like a shortcut that we > > might > > > > >> want to prevent as it could be a bad example? > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Jun 10, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Marco Massenzio < > > ma...@mesosphere.io> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Hadn't realized that the mailing list forwarder would make the > > > images > > > > >> unavailable, apologies about that. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I've created this Google Doc < > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQIyEzFP3LF05FkW81SYcG50-HaACD2u-f2SPVAERI8/edit > > > > > > > > > >> which should be open and accessible. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Again, please let me know if anyone feels strongly that we > should > > > keep > > > > >> the current workflow. > > > > >> > Thanks! > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Marco Massenzio > > > > >> > Distributed Systems Engineer > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Marco Massenzio < > > > ma...@mesosphere.io > > > > >> <mailto:ma...@mesosphere.io>> wrote: > > > > >> > Folks, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Please take a look at MESOS-2806: in a nutshell, our current > > > workflow > > > > >> is rather convoluted and brings about a host of issues, when > > managing > > > > >> tasks' status transitions (detailed in the Jira - see screenshots > > > > there). > > > > >> > > > > > >> > This is what it currently looks like: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > (spaghetti workflow? :) > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I would propose to simplify it to the following: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I'm sure we can think up all sorts of corner cases, but I would > > > submit > > > > >> that simplicity would trump complexity and allow us to track > > progress > > > > (or > > > > >> lack thereof) of stories/tasks/bugs in a much more punctual > manner. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Anyone against it? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Marco Massenzio > > > > >> > Distributed Systems Engineer > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
