Simon, I have several questions: 1) we should define feature development and defects fixed plan in one iteration, right? it can help developer and tester finish their task in one iteration. if we need have iteration development plan review? 2)if QE reports severity 1& 2 defects, if they all must be fixed in this iteration? 3)From my experience, I don't think we can start regression test at the 4th week in one iteration, maybe 1st week in next iteration is good choice. Thanks -Xue Fei
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Kevin Grignon <kevingrignon...@gmail.com>wrote: > KG01 - see comments inline. > > On Jul 21, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Shenfeng Liu <liush...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Kevin, > > Good suggestion! > > Maybe we can use the Priority field together with the Target Miletone > > field. e.g. For an item we propose to 3.5, we set Target Milestone to AOO > > 3.5, then setup Priority to: P1 for must have, P2 for should have, P3 for > > better to have... ? > > > > KG01 - Prioritizing work is great. Must, should, nice-to-have are simple > and clear categories. > > I'm assuming your priority suggestion is independent of a 'backlog' target > milestone. We need a 'backlog' target to serve as the bucket from which we > can pull work and create plans. > > > > > - Simon > > > > > > 2012/7/20 Kevin Grignon <kevingrignon...@gmail.com> > > > >> KG01 - See comments inline. > >> > >> On Jul 20, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Shenfeng Liu <liush...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Wang Lei, > >>> The proposed items look very good! And you can create issues and > setting > >>> Issue Type as ENHANCEMENT or FEATURE in BZ if they did not exist, then > >> fill > >>> the Task-ID in wiki. Thanks very much for your input! > >>> > >>> - Simon > >>> > >>> > >>> 2012/7/20 Lei Wang <l...@apache.org> > >>> > >>>> I add some items for Calc application for 3.5 plan in 3.5 Release > >> Planning > >>>> wiki< > >>>> > >>>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.5+Release+Planning > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> If there are anything which must be in 3.5 for Calc, please discuss it > >> here > >>>> or put it in the list in the planning wiki. > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Shenfeng Liu <liush...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Juergen, > >>>>> Thanks for your comments! > >>>>> My thoughts below... > >>>>> And I updated the 3.5 Release Planning > >>>>> wiki< > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.5+Release+Planning > >>>>>> with > >>>>> a draft of the defect/feature rule. Could you and QE team review and > >>>>> give comments? > >>>>> Again, it is not only related to developers, but also testers and > >> other > >>>>> contributors on how to collaborate in 3.5. So I'd like to hear more > >>>>> comments. e.g. from Yan Ji and other QE members... > >>>>> And translation process is a very important part, but I'm not quite > >>>>> familiar... > >>>>> > >>>>> - Simon > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 2012/7/18 Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 7/18/12 9:02 AM, Shenfeng Liu wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi, all, > >>>>>>> I made some update on the AOO 3.5 Release Planning wiki Juergen > >>>>>> created: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.5+Release+Planning > >>>>>> . > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And besides proposing contents in the High Level Overview table, I > >>>>>> think > >>>>>>> we should also think about the release process. And below are what > in > >>>>> my > >>>>>>> mind: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1. Defect/Enhancement rule > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In 3.5, there will be not only defects, but also some feature > >>>>>> enhancements > >>>>>>> that need relatively bigger development efforts. The 3.5 release > >>>> circle > >>>>>>> will also be longer than 3.4.1. And more contributors will > >>>>> participate, I > >>>>>>> believe. So it is very important to build up a good traceability, > so > >>>>> that > >>>>>>> we can query out the project status automatically, but not rely on > >>>>>> people's > >>>>>>> input in wiki. > >>>>>>> To make it happen, we need to define some rules in Bugzilla for: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> (1) Defect/Enhancement creating. e.g. against which Version, define > >> > >> KG01 - Can we include a "backlog" or "undefined" fix in version? The > >> backlog then allows us to maintain a pool of work items (someday maybe > >> list) which can be assigned to iteration/releases moving forward. > >> > >> > >>>> of > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>> Severity/Priority, Keywords needed... > >> > >>>>>>> (2) Defect triage. How do we decide if a fix or a feature should be > >>>> in > >>>>>> 3.5 > >>>>>>> or not? Where do we record our decision (e.g. in Target Milestone, > or > >>>>>>> Flags)? It will become important when we close to GA, or deliver a > >>>>>>> milestone build. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> all fixes should be allowed to go into a release. And I think all > >>>>>> features as well if there are no valid concerns. After having the > >> fixes > >>>>>> in a milestone build we can set the target of the issue to 3.5 for > >>>>>> example. This will make it clear that it goes into the 3.5, was > >> already > >>>>>> part of a milestone build and will be part of further milestones. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for your comments! I drafted a defect/feature rule in the 3.5 > >>>>> Release Planning wiki, please review. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We should define the fix integration order. Currently we follow the > >>>>>> approach to fix on trunk and merge in the branch on demand. Or fix > on > >>>>>> branch only if branch specific like branding for example. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> For defects and small fixes, I think "fix on trunk and merge in the > >>>> branch > >>>>> on demand" is good approach. > >>>>> For feature/enhancements, I prefer them to be completed an pass an > >>>>> acceptance testing in a branch firstly, then deliver to trunk. > >>>>> For branch specific fixes, as you said, should be only on the > specific > >>>>> branch. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> (3) Defect fix, patch, review. > >>>>>>> (4) Defect verify/close. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For some rules (e.g. Severity/Priority), we may point to a place > with > >>>>>>> general rules defined. For some rules specific to 3.5 (e.g. > Version, > >>>>>> Target > >>>>>>> Milestone, Flags), we should write them down in the release > planning > >>>>>> wiki. > >>>>>>> After we defined the rules, QE team can help to define some shared > >>>>>> queries > >>>>>>> for us to get the project status and todo list. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> to define and build a common understanding would definitely help all > >>>>>> involved parties to track issues and get a better understanding > about > >>>>>> our releases and what goes in them. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. Iteration and Milestone builds > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Since, as discussed, 3.5 release is likely to last for 6~9 months, > I > >>>>>> think > >>>>>>> it will be good for us to try the iterative development mode, and > >>>>> deliver > >>>>>>> milestone builds regularly. The milestone builds are dev snapshot > >>>>> builds, > >>>>>>> not formal release, but contains new bug fixes and enhancements > >>>>>> implemented > >>>>>>> till the last iteration, and verified to be relatively stable in > >>>>> quality > >>>>>> by > >>>>>>> QE team with a small regression test suite. And the milestone > builds > >>>>> can > >>>>>> be > >>>>>>> announced to external for people's try out the new enhancement > works, > >>>>>>> provide feedback and report issues. And internally, it can help us > to > >>>>>>> measure the quality regularly, and avoid big quality deviation. > >>>>>>> Since we are open community and many of us are volunteers working > on > >>>>> AOO > >>>>>>> with their spare time, it is unlikely for us to apply strict agile > >>>>>>> discipline. So I think the process can be some thing like below: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> (1) Define the iterations of 4 weeks or 1 month (or any better > >>>>>>> suggestion?), announce the timelines in wiki. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> a monthly milestone build sound reasonable to me and we have our > >>>> nightly > >>>>>> builds to review fixes more frequently. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> (2) 1 week before the iteration, a milestone branch will be > created. > >>>> QE > >>>>>>> will do 1 week regression test on it. Dev will fix critical defects > >>>>> found > >>>>>>> in this branch. Then all the fixes in this milestone branch will be > >>>>> back > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>> 3.5 trunk. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> it sounds like a tough but good plan if we can achieve it. > Definitely > >>>>>> worth a try from my perspective. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> (3) As a developer, it will be welcome if you can target your work > to > >>>>> an > >>>>>>> iteration. But if you can not finish it before the milestone branch > >>>>>> created > >>>>>>> (e.g. you are working on an enhancement that will take 2 weeks, and > >>>> you > >>>>>>> just implement 80% by that time), means you can not deliver in this > >>>>>>> iteration, then you just keep your work in your branch, and deliver > >>>> it > >>>>> to > >>>>>>> 3.5 trunk in the next iteration. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Taking into account that we all want a stable and good product I > think > >>>>>> this is a valid approach and the next iteration is not too far away. > >>>> And > >>>>>> by the way it's always good to split bigger tasks in smaller better > >>>>>> maintainable chunks if possible. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I realized that my iteration and milestone proposal may put more > >>>> pressures > >>>>> to QE team. So I think we can do it this way: > >>>>> (1) Set monthly as a target. > >>>>> (2) If we can not achieve it (not only because the build quality, but > >>>> also > >>>>> can be due to that QE team has no bandwidth to finish the iteration > >>>>> regression in time), there can be 2 options: (A) delay for more days > >> for > >>>>> this milestone; (B) jump over without announcing this milestone > build, > >>>> and > >>>>> target directly to the next milestone. It can be discussed depends on > >> the > >>>>> situation then. > >>>>> > >>>>> Agree with your comments below that we can try 1 or 2 iterations to > see > >>>> how > >>>>> it works, then adjust according to the feedback. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> I would support such an approach and think we should try it with > 3.5. > >>>> We > >>>>>> can adapt it later on when see demand to change or to improve > >> things... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Juergen > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> >
