On 11/3/06, Niklas Nebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> Another point I want to mention is that, perhaps the UI design
> requirement at CWS integration time should be relaxed a bit. Instead
> of requiring UE approveal of the UI change at cws integration time,
> either QA or peer reviewer can pre-approve the UI and integrate the
> code first. And queue the final UI approval to IssueTracker as a new
> issue, assign it to UE (whoever that is) and set the appropriate
> target milestone so that he/she can finalize it later. If UE thinks
> that a UI change is necessary, request change to the developer so that
> the finalization takes place before the public release. This way, the
> process is asynchronous, and in line with our goal of fast track code
> integration.
Then we would end up with unfinished UI integrated into HEAD and
potentially in a release. That's not good.
The point is unfinished *to what degree*? I trust that a QA personnel
and peer reviewer can at least have enough intelligence to tell if the
UI is badly broken (hence reject it). But if it's not badly broken,
and functional to a sufficient degree, it should be okay to integrate
it. So, I consider that a 90% finalized at that stage, then UE would
add the remaining 10% (before the release).
Admittedly my proposal does not include how to make sure it does not
slip into the release, though. :-)
Anyway,
Kohei
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
