Re: [Tails-dev] Proposal: Redmine workflow change
intrigeri: > Hi, > > intrigeri: >> So I propose that we drop the "QA Check" field and instead, introduce >> a "Needs Validation" status. > > This proposal from March 24 was implemented on June 2. > > Any feedback about how this change impacted your work so far? 100% optimization, 0% loss of value! 10/10! :) ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Proposal: Redmine workflow change
intrigeri: > intrigeri: >> So I propose that we drop the "QA Check" field and instead, introduce >> a "Needs Validation" status. > > This proposal from March 24 was implemented on June 2. > > Any feedback about how this change impacted your work so far? Very fine change! -- sajolida Tails — https://tails.boum.org/ UX · Fundraising · Technical Writing ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Proposal: Redmine workflow change
Hi, intrigeri: > So I propose that we drop the "QA Check" field and instead, introduce > a "Needs Validation" status. This proposal from March 24 was implemented on June 2. Any feedback about how this change impacted your work so far? Cheers, -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Proposal: Redmine workflow change
intrigeri: > intrigeri: >> I'll wait (at least) one more week and if there's no strong objection, >> I'll implement this proposal. > I'm doing this today. Expect tons of notifications from Redmine. Done! Context: https://lists.autistici.org/message/20190324.103611.7aa3cabe.en.html Corresponding doc changes: 3a5f3861..3fdce88 I've updated all the Redmine custom queries I had access to. If you have created custom queries that you've made visible only by yourself, you may need to update them yourself. I'll make sure the corresponding CI code updates I've pushed work fine. ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Proposal: Redmine workflow change
intrigeri: > I'll wait (at least) one more week and if there's no strong objection, > I'll implement this proposal. I'm doing this today. Expect tons of notifications from Redmine. ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Proposal: Redmine workflow change
Hi, intrigeri: > anonym: >> intrigeri: >>> Given we now have "mentions" (@nickname) on our Redmine, for the >>> majority of cases, when the requested info can presumably be provided >>> cheaply and quickly, I think we should use mentions and not reassign >>> the ticket. And when I'm mentioned, if I realize that providing the >>> requested info needs will take me great amounts of work, I should >>> do whatever works for me to track this work, be it on a new ticket >>> or my personal offline organization tools. > >> I quite like this feature and have set up filter rules in my email >> client for the resulting redmine notifications I receive so I don't >> miss them. However, I wonder how this works out if you don't do >> something like that. I also fear that the ad hoc tracking of >> "mentions" that you propose above is easy to forget. > > I think most of us are in one of these 4 situations: > > - They notice and track new incoming emails but don't pay much >attention to tickets reassigned to them on Redmine (note that >Redmine sends no notification to the new assignee). > >Mentions help. Reassigning does not help (I've seen quite a few >cases recently where it appears that the new assignee had no idea >something was expected from them). > >So dropping "Info Needed" is a no-op. I fall into this category, *but* I think the "Info Needed" field is still sometimes useful for me. While I at least take notice of all my Redmine emails, I sometimes get a lot of them (because I also watch some tickets which are not on my plate, but for which I would like to stay up-to-date about the progress). And my tracking is not the best, I sometimes forget to star an email that requires action by me. In this case it does help if a ticket is assigned to me so that I see it when I check my assigned tickets on Redmine (which I do rarely, but still). But I also see that losing track of ones issue by assigning someone for "Info Needed" is a problem. It would be nice if Redmine would support multiple assignees for issues, which GitLab does support. All in all I'm okay with trying to drop the "Info Needed" field and see how it works out. Cheers ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Proposal: Redmine workflow change
Hi, I'll wait (at least) one more week and if there's no strong objection, I'll implement this proposal. Cheers, -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Proposal: Redmine workflow change
Hi, anonym: > intrigeri: >> Given we now have "mentions" (@nickname) on our Redmine, for the >> majority of cases, when the requested info can presumably be provided >> cheaply and quickly, I think we should use mentions and not reassign >> the ticket. And when I'm mentioned, if I realize that providing the >> requested info needs will take me great amounts of work, I should >> do whatever works for me to track this work, be it on a new ticket >> or my personal offline organization tools. > I quite like this feature and have set up filter rules in my email > client for the resulting redmine notifications I receive so I don't > miss them. However, I wonder how this works out if you don't do > something like that. I also fear that the ad hoc tracking of > "mentions" that you propose above is easy to forget. I think most of us are in one of these 4 situations: - They notice and track new incoming emails but don't pay much attention to tickets reassigned to them on Redmine (note that Redmine sends no notification to the new assignee). Mentions help. Reassigning does not help (I've seen quite a few cases recently where it appears that the new assignee had no idea something was expected from them). So dropping "Info Needed" is a no-op. - They regularly look at their Redmine plate but they won't notice incoming email Redmine sends them, unless they set up ad-hoc filters. Mentions don't help. Reassigning or creating a new subtasks helps. So dropping "Info Needed" + reassignment brings a regression. To mitigate this: - We should strongly recommend these folks set up whatever filters they need to notice email our Redmine is sending them. - Creating a dedicated subtask for the info request is an option in some cases (I'll discuss this below). - To address the root cause of the problem and make email a communication option that actually works, we should gently suggest these folks to unsubscribe from sources of incoming email that they don't read, and that swamps them in an inbox they barely dare looking at. I guess that's part of self-care recommendations we could promote more visibly within Tails :) - They pay attention to their Redmine plate and to incoming email. All's well, no change here. - They don't pay much attention to their Redmine plate and don't notice incoming email from Redmine. No change here. No ticket tracking system will help. Only social processes, such as regular team meetings, have a chance to enable successful collaboration & communication. > I just had a half-baked idea that might have some merit: say I work > on ticket X and need info about "foo" from intrigeri. Then I just > create a subticket Y of X called "Info needed: foo" and assign it to > intri. When intri has posted the information about "foo" to X he can > then mark Y as resolved. That's surely a valid option in some cases, mainly: 1) when the overhead of "just" creating a subtask is justified by the amount of work needed to fulfil the info request; 2) for those of us who can't afford paying attention to email Redmine sends them. I don't know how much of our "Info Needed" usage fits into this category. I want to keep this option in mind even though I'd rather first tackle the root cause of the problem, because for (2) this option feels like a workaround. Cheers! -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Proposal: Redmine workflow change
sajolida: > intrigeri: >> So I propose that we drop the "QA Check" field and instead, introduce >> a "Needs Validation" status. > Good idea! Works for me. :) > What would happen to tickets that go back-and-forth between the main > author and the reviewer? Would they stay in "Needs Validation" or go > back-and-forth between "In Progress" and "Needs Validation"? The latter, as per: And if the reviewer requests changes, they would set the status back to "In Progress". Cheers, -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Proposal: Redmine workflow change
intrigeri: > So I propose that we drop the "QA Check" field and instead, introduce > a "Needs Validation" status. Good idea! Works for me. What would happen to tickets that go back-and-forth between the main author and the reviewer? Would they stay in "Needs Validation" or go back-and-forth between "In Progress" and "Needs Validation"? -- sajolida ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Proposal: Redmine workflow change
intrigeri: > So I propose that we drop the "QA Check" field and instead, introduce > a "Needs Validation" status. Sounds much simpler, awesome! +1 > Given we now have "mentions" (@nickname) on our Redmine, for the > majority of cases, when the requested info can presumably be provided > cheaply and quickly, I think we should use mentions and not reassign > the ticket. And when I'm mentioned, if I realize that providing the > requested info needs will take me great amounts of work, I should > do whatever works for me to track this work, be it on a new ticket > or my personal offline organization tools. I quite like this feature and have set up filter rules in my email client for the resulting redmine notifications I receive so I don't miss them. However, I wonder how this works out if you don't do something like that. I also fear that the ad hoc tracking of "mentions" that you propose above is easy to forget. I just had a half-baked idea that might have some merit: say I work on ticket X and need info about "foo" from intrigeri. Then I just create a subticket Y of X called "Info needed: foo" and assign it to intri. When intri has posted the information about "foo" to X he can then mark Y as resolved. Cheers! ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Proposal: Redmine workflow change
Hello, On 25.03.19 10:10, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Sun 2019-03-24 11:36:11 +0100, intrigeri wrote: >> Thoughts? >> >> I'll be happy to implement this proposal. > > I'm not a regular contributor, so you should weight my opinion very > lightly, but this all sounds quite to me. > > The more i see technical systems in actual use, the more i think that > simpler tooling is better and more likely to be used effectively, even > if it is not as nuanced. > > The argument for nuance is that it can typically represent reality more > closely than the simpler view. But if, in practice, that nuance isn't > widely understood, or is accidentally misused, then that particular > advantage is actually a disadvantage. > > Your proposal sounds simpler and therefore more likely to be accurate. I'm all for simplifications of workflows :) Cheers! u. ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Proposal: Redmine workflow change
On Sun 2019-03-24 11:36:11 +0100, intrigeri wrote: > Thoughts? > > I'll be happy to implement this proposal. I'm not a regular contributor, so you should weight my opinion very lightly, but this all sounds quite to me. The more i see technical systems in actual use, the more i think that simpler tooling is better and more likely to be used effectively, even if it is not as nuanced. The argument for nuance is that it can typically represent reality more closely than the simpler view. But if, in practice, that nuance isn't widely understood, or is accidentally misused, then that particular advantage is actually a disadvantage. Your proposal sounds simpler and therefore more likely to be accurate. --dkg signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
[Tails-dev] Proposal: Redmine workflow change
Hi, With the upcoming migration to GitLab in mind, while reading some books, using a kanban board locally, and with the idea to make the contribution process smoother for both newcomers & long-timers, I've thought quite a bit about how we use tickets to organize our work recently. My main conclusion so far is: I want to make it easier to determine and set the status of a ticket. Currently, the status of a Redmine ticket is built from the combination of "Status" and "QA Check"; it does not help that some of these combinations make no sense at all. I've noticed that many of us have a hard time managing these 2 fields, regardless of how long they've been contributing to Tails; so this data is very often wrong. This, plus Redmine limitations, makes it impossible at the moment to have an overview of a set of tickets, grouped by their actual status (defined by a combination of "Status" and "QA Check"). So I propose that we drop the "QA Check" field and instead, introduce a "Needs Validation" status. So a ticket would typically go through this journey: New → Confirmed → In Progress (once someone starts working on it) → Needs Validation (once it's deemed ready to be merged by the person/team who's been working on it) → Fix committed → Resolved. And if the reviewer requests changes, they would set the status back to "In Progress". The only thing we lose along the way is QA Check = "Info Needed" plus the associated reassignment dance. Removing that has only benefits IMO: - This value is very often wrong because we forget to drop it and to reassign back, after providing the requested info. - Assigning a ticket to someone else + Info Needed, merely to get some input regularly causes trouble: it makes the task invisible to the person who's requesting the info, which makes it harder to organize their work — occasionally I'll be surprised when a ticket lands back on my plate after the info is provided. And if the requested info is not provided in a timely manner, WIP can be stalled for a long time, with no easy way for the requester to notice and decide whether they should move on without that info. Given we now have "mentions" (@nickname) on our Redmine, for the majority of cases, when the requested info can presumably be provided cheaply and quickly, I think we should use mentions and not reassign the ticket. And when I'm mentioned, if I realize that providing the requested info needs will take me great amounts of work, I should do whatever works for me to track this work, be it on a new ticket or my personal offline organization tools. Thoughts? I'll be happy to implement this proposal. Cheers, -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
