Am Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:49:17 +0200 schrieb Bernd Eilers <bernd.eil...@sun.com>:
> 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. Well, as long the CWS is in state "new", neither QA or program management should care for it. It is still firmly in the domain of development. And there is absolutely not reason to even _care_ and maintain "allowed releases" or other bureaucratic stuff, as development at this stage only cares about failed buildbots and failed tests and EIS should behave that way. Certainly devs do not want to beg PM for adding an allowed release so they can again have a sensible summary of the _important_ information at this stage. Once the CWS goes RfQA it is a different issue: this is the point where the bureaucratic stuff starts. OTOH it might be simpler to just keep the important development info (bots and tests) out of EIS. Thereby devs could happily ignore it while it is irrelevant (before RfQA) and still have relevant information at hand in that phase. Just my heretic 2 euro cents, Bjoern --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tools.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tools.openoffice.org
