On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Tai Lee <real.hu...@mrmachine.net> wrote: > I like the idea of needmoreinfo as a resolution, which makes it clear > to the reporter that they need to take the next step to re-open the > ticket with more info. I don't think that closed with "invalid" and a > comment makes this as clear. > > However, I think there's another problem area where we need to be able > to make it clear that someone needs to take the next step, and that is > when a ticket has been "accepted", feedback has been given to the > reporter, and the reporter has actioned that feedback (e.g. by > uploading a patch with tests and docs as per the feedback). In this > case the ticket will often languish in "accepted" for months (or > years). Since it is frowned upon for a reporter to mark their own > ticket as RFC, there's no way for the reporter to flag the ticket as > feedback actioned and put it back in the court of the original triager > or core developer who accepted it and gave their feedback, who can > then either push it up to RFC or commit it themselves.
Incorrect. There *is* a way for a reporter to flag that they have followed through on feedback -- they update the 'need docs', 'needs tests' and 'needs improvement' flags. Example workflow: * Alice creates a ticket, with an incomplete patch (no tests, incorrect implementation) * Bob reviews the patch, marks it "Accepted, needs tests, patch needs improvement" * Alice updates the patch, adding tests (but not changing the implemenation). She removes the two flags. * Charlie reviews the patch, resets the 'patch needs improvement flag' * Alice updates the patch, fixing the implementation. She removes the needs improvement flag. * Daisy reviews the patch, marks it RFC. At any point in this process, a search for tickets "Accepted & has patch & !needs improvement & !needs docs & !needs tests" will reveal tickets that need review of some kind. These tickets either need to be moved to RFC, or need to have their flags set to indicate the deficiency in the patch. A search for tickets with "Accepted & has patch & (needs improvement | needs tests | needs docs)" will reveal tickets that require some action on the part of the reporter (or some other interested party). This doesn't address the issue of people not keeping their ticket metadata accurate. Badly tagged tickets will always fall through the cracks. However, as I've said before, adding *more* flags doesn't fix this problem. The only solution I can think of for this is to provide better canned "work that needs doing" searches -- i.e., a clearly referenced "patches that need review" list, and a "patches that need updates" list. This way, a reporter can check for themselves whether their ticket will appear on a todo list. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
