Mathias Bauer wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
the "right solution" would be to remove the check. A target milestone is
a hint when a particular should be fixed or is planned to be fixed. The
same is true for a CWS. If a developers decided to fix an issue earlier
or finish a CWS earlier, why should that be marked as "failed"?
Because the data of the issue doesn´t match the data of the CWS and we
have an inconsistent state in the tools that document what we are doing.
Where is the point of not wanting to also change the issue data if the
decision when to fix the issue did change. Why do you want to refuse to
document that by changing the issue data.
The "failed" status in this case is just a "hint" to the developer that
there are issues on his CWS which either need to be fixed on another CWS
which is based on another codeline or which need to be adjusted to be
fixed on another target which might eventually also need an agreement
about that with other stakeholders involved.
That's
exactly what Stephan said: bureaucratic humbug.
Well I know we do have some members in an
implement_as_you_want_when_you_want_and_dont_care_about_qa-needs_roadmaps_or_documentation
camp but I didn´t really expect you two to be in there ;-)
The need to provide information and status flags in EIS and issues is
just there to reflect what actually currently is being done and what has
been done in the past for others and for processes besides the pure
coding in development that need to be organized for creating a product.
The check for "all tasks fixed" is another story. It makes sense to
check that before a CWS is waiting for QA approval.
Well just because the CWS is flagged red while it is in development that
is not a bad thing and it doesn´t mean the test has to be postponed to
the very last momment just when the developer wants to change it´s state
to "ready for qa".
In fact that´s a quite common thing in programming to write the testcase
first and than let it fail until the changes in the implementation fix
the issue.
Regards,
Bernd
Regards,
Mathias
On 21.06.2010 12:00, Bernd Eilers wrote:
Hi there!
I think the real root cause is that the definitions of what can be done
on which codeline is currently often not done early enough. As soon as a
new target is being created for the bugtracking system the corresponding
rules should be configured in EIS also. If that would be the case we
wouldn´t have any annoyance either. If that doesn´t work somebody just
has to complain to the group of people which have been assigned to do
these administrative tasks and that is "program management".
Doing such test only when the cws is being set to "ready for QA" just
because some developers don´t like to see the color red is IMHO not the
right solution. On the contrary I would argue that maybe even setting
the CWS to "ready for QA" shouldn´t be allowed at all if there are tasks
with the wrong target.
Kind regards,
Bernd Eilers
Mathias Bauer wrote:
Hi,
ACK.
If we think that we need that bullshit, the status should at least not
be set to "failed" before the CWS is ready for QA. That still would be
bureaucratic humbug (because both fields are that per se), but at
least some humbug that is less annoying.
Regards,
Mathias
On 18.06.2010 12:06, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
What a heap of bureaucratic humbug.
-Stephan
On 06/18/10 11:43, Bernd Eilers wrote:
Hi Stephan!
There is no "error" in EIS, EIS behaves just as it was instructed to
do.
If you click on the "Details" link you will find the following
information:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The release of this ChildWorkspace is OOo 3.4 . The release of the CWS
is invalid.
The allowed Releases for the MasterWorkspace of this CWS are: OOo 3.1
, OOo 3.2 , OOo 3.1.1 , OOo 3.3 , OOo 3.2.1
The List of allowed Releases for MasterWorkspaces is being maintained
by program management.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This all basically means that if you think OOo 3.4 should be in the
list for that MasterWorkspace but isn´t ask your friendly program
manager next door to add it.
Kind regards,
Bernd Eilers
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
For a CWS based on DEV300 with release set to OOo 3.4 and all
associated tasks having target OOo 3.4, AllowedRelease and
AllowedTaskTargets erroneously are both set to failed (e.g., see
<http://eis.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/cws.ShowCWS?Id=9434&OpenOnly=false&Section=All>).
-Stephan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tools.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tools.openoffice.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tools.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tools.openoffice.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tools.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tools.openoffice.org
