Right now we don't have a way of indicating if an issue has been tested or not. As a workaround we accorded that every issue in the "resolved" status is not tested yet, and those that are "closed" are. This is far from being ideal. So I would like to ask you for your opinion and ideas on this topic.
One option that has been around for a long time is to introduce a new status called "tested", between "resolved" and "closed". This has a fundamental problem, though: why is the "tested" status after "resolved" and not after? One would think that you cannot claim to fix an issue if it's not tested. It might be a terminology difference only, but it says a lot about us. So the other option as a consequence of this is to have a new status between "scheduled" and "resolved", called "Ready for testing". But now we have the Continuous Integration factor as well. So need to differentiate between "CI testing" and "Manual testing/verification/review". So this is one possible workflow: * New * Feedback * Acknowledged * Scheduled * Ready for testing * Ready for review * Resolved * Closed These are the actions that would trigger status changes: * A Mercurial commit moves an issue from "Scheduled" to "Ready for testing". * The CI moves an issue from "Ready for testing" to "Ready for review". * The reviewers (right now QA) move the issues from "Ready for review" to "Resolved". * And when a release is out we move the "Resolved" issues to "Closed". Comments? Your ideas? Juan Pablo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Openbravo-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openbravo-development
