Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site +- Reporter: gjm| Owner: gjm Type: task | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Unscheduled Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: fixed | Keywords: bh_workflow +- Changes (by gjm): * status: accepted = closed * resolution: = fixed Comment: Fixed a few stupid mistakes - for some reason there were doubled-up operations for some of the actions. I'm also going to allow the change to review direct from assigned for now. We may need to look at more advanced workflow for proper needinfo transitions so that we can revert to a previous state and previous owner. -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:24 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site +- Reporter: gjm| Owner: Type: task | Status: needinfo Priority: major | Milestone: Unscheduled Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: bh_workflow +- Changes (by gjm): * status: assigned = needinfo * owner: gjm = Comment: 2. #194 - info request - assign to olemis -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:21 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site +- Reporter: gjm| Owner: Type: task | Status: assigned Priority: major | Milestone: Unscheduled Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: bh_workflow +- Changes (by gjm): * status: needinfo = assigned Comment: yes.. appears you are right. If it is a problem with the workflow definition, it should be sorted here. If it is a bug, this will probably need a new ticket (and a look to see if there is an upstream ticket). -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:22 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site +- Reporter: gjm| Owner: gjm Type: task | Status: accepted Priority: major | Milestone: Unscheduled Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: bh_workflow +- Changes (by gjm): * owner: = gjm * status: assigned = accepted -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:23 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site +- Reporter: gjm| Owner: gjm Type: task | Status: review Priority: major | Milestone: Unscheduled Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: bh_workflow +- Changes (by olemis): * milestone: = Unscheduled -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:19 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site + Reporter: gjm| Owner: gjm Type: task | Status: review Priority: major | Milestone: Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: + Comment (by olemis): Recently I noticed some weird transitions while using new workflow . Sequence was 1. #195 put into needsinfo status owner = jdreimann 2. #195 put into assigned status owner = empty (even if input box = olemis) 3. #195 put into assigned status owner = olemis (review action not available :'( ... ) 4. #195 put into review status owner = jdreimann The issue is somewhere between transitions (2) or (3) . I was hoping to be do it like this 1. #195 put into needsinfo status owner = jdreimann 2. #195 put into assigned status owner = olemis 3. #195 put into review status owner = jdreimann what d'u think ? '''PS:''' the same comment has been posted to bh-dev ML ... I just thought this had to be mentioned here instead ... jftr -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:17 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
+
Reporter: gjm| Owner: nobody
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: siteadmin |Version:
Resolution: | Keywords:
+
Comment (by gjm):
With use I noted a few missing actions ({{{reopen}}} and {{{failreview}}})
and a few problems with action labels when there is also a potential
change of ownership which should now be corrected. Also the using
{{{started}}} in addition to {{{accepted}}} still felt like a bit too much
of a complication. It is a bit easier to add than take away states (in
some senses anyway) and so I suggest that it is removed, at least
temporarily.
So, this is the new workflow for now:
attachment:new_workflow_current.ini
[[Image(current workflow.png)]]
--
Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:14
Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/
The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site + Reporter: gjm| Owner: gjm Type: task | Status: review Priority: major | Milestone: Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: + Changes (by gjm): * status: accepted = review Comment: Work complete, waiting on feedback. -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:16 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site + Reporter: gjm| Owner: nobody Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: + Comment (by gjm): I've been looking into various issues around workflow. One thing that the [https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/attachment/ticket/194/opensource- workflow.png opensource workflow] is missing for us is capturing aspects of review/testing. I am not entirely sure that we need anything specific for testing so I suggest that we just have a generic review step that is re-entrant in case anyone wants to record specific testing to be done by another user. Also, I am not proposing that there should be anything to force the ticket to go through these steps - it is more so that the ticket can be in an appropriate state for others to pick up on. So, the rules I am suggesting at the moment are in the attachment:new_workflow.ini which should look something like this as a graph: [[Image(opensource workflow with review.png)]] The graph misses a few features like where there is change of ownership which I have added to the changes to the infoneeded and review states for the moment. -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:13 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site + Reporter: gjm| Owner: nobody Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: + Comment (by jdreimann): Replying to [comment:6 olemis]: Replying to [comment:1 jdreimann]: I can think of a few things that could help here, some immediate, some longer term: I welcome all these suggestions, yes . Especially sometimes it's a bit hard for me to determine assigned tickets having pending patches , for instance . I agree. My suggestion for this is the 'pending review' status. 2. The status of tickets is currently either 'new', 'assigned', 'accepted' or 'resolved' and 're-opened' as far as I can tell. In reality something like this happens: 'new', 'work in progress', 'pending review', 'resolved'. (Work usually means code). Matching this more closely and providing better control to move between states would help. The only thing I'd like to add is that sometimes between 'work in progress', and 'pending review' , ticket enters an state in which nothing can be done until something happens Your examples describe a blocker issue in my opinion, some internal and some 3rd party. Internal means the ticket that is blocking progress should be changed to 'blocker', external means we should add a ticket type that is 'External' or '3rd party' and assign it a 'blocker' status if it's a blocker. -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:7 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site + Reporter: gjm| Owner: nobody Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: + Comment (by gjm): Replying to [comment:7 jdreimann]: Replying to [comment:6 olemis]: Replying to [comment:1 jdreimann]: I can think of a few things that could help here, some immediate, some longer term: I welcome all these suggestions, yes . Especially sometimes it's a bit hard for me to determine assigned tickets having pending patches , for instance . I agree. My suggestion for this is the 'pending review' status. 2. The status of tickets is currently either 'new', 'assigned', 'accepted' or 'resolved' and 're-opened' as far as I can tell. In reality something like this happens: 'new', 'work in progress', 'pending review', 'resolved'. (Work usually means code). Matching this more closely and providing better control to move between states would help. The only thing I'd like to add is that sometimes between 'work in progress', and 'pending review' , ticket enters an state in which nothing can be done until something happens Your examples describe a blocker issue in my opinion, some internal and some 3rd party. Internal means the ticket that is blocking progress should be changed to 'blocker', external means we should add a ticket type that is 'External' or '3rd party' and assign it a 'blocker' status if it's a blocker. I would have no particular reason to say that we would need to raise a ticket about an external blocker to a tickets progress. It would depend on whether someone else required a ticket to work with a third party to unblock the issue. The main thing is that the ticket that is blocked notes the block and references any ticket that deals with it. So, that just leaves the state that the ticket is in - the ticket might be expected to remain owned by the same person but it should change to a requires info state or similar. This really depends on the amount of work that has been achieved up to that point and whether the owner will be able to take up the ticket again soon after the blocking issue is cleared. -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:8 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site + Reporter: gjm| Owner: nobody Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: + Comment (by gjm): I think I would like to start from an example workflow that should only need some tweaking to get what we need. So I suggest we start with the opensource-workflow example which is represented by the following diagram: [[Image(opensource-workflow.png)]] If we add a review state, and possibly a testing state with appropriate transitions, would we have enough for our needs? -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:9 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site + Reporter: gjm| Owner: nobody Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: + Comment (by olemis): It has a lot of potential . I think it won't hurt to try it for a while . And you ? :) -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:10 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site + Reporter: gjm| Owner: nobody Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: + Comment (by olemis): Actually what I don't like is that there's a single state with no owner (i.e. `new` ) . Something like ''deferred'' or ''paused'' would be nice to have to make a difference between new tickets and started but inactive tickets . Beyond that , it seems to me that it's fine . -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:11 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site + Reporter: gjm| Owner: nobody Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: + Comment (by gjm): I don't see a particular advantage to declaring tickets that are paused as different to any other with no owner. The new label may be a little unfortunate but as a shorthand for unassigned, it is probably good enough for now. -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:12 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: examine workflow for Bloodhound site + Reporter: gjm| Owner: nobody Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: + Comment (by gjm): Oh, perhaps for we might want to have helpme tickets prominent on the Dashboard too, particularly for those who do not have an account -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:3 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: examine workflow for Bloodhound site
#194: examine workflow for Bloodhound site + Reporter: gjm| Owner: nobody Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: siteadmin |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: + Comment (by jdreimann): 2. I like the keyword based approach. What I wanted to say by untouched is that we leave those tickets alone, other than with helpful comments and hints for those that will pick them up - not resolve the tickets. Showing them in the Dashboard when not logged in would work well in our use case, but maybe not in a general one for Bloodhound? Not sure. 3. So a more abstract '''I''' / '''II''' / '''III''' approach may work better? 4. That's why I didn't call it code. debates, wireframes and mockups also fall into this category. -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:4 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker
