Hi, François,
(sorry for the spam; I hit the send button by mistake, as you can tell)
Sure, it wouldn’t be difficult to bulk close verified bugs at the end of a release, provided those bugs were targeting that release, which is easy enough to filter in the bugzilla target field if it is properly filled, which it almost never is in our bugs.
But, again, who is the QA for Papyrus that does the verification of bugs? Do we have a QA team dedicated to testing the Papyrus project in general and bugzilla items specifically?
I don’t mind a more rigorous process, because it could help to focus our attention as developers to the details, but I’m not seeing yet where the resources are to support it and what the value is to our goals.
Thanks,
Christian
Hi, François,
Sure, it wouldn’t be difficult to bulk close verified bugs at the
end of a release (provided those bugs were targeting that release,
which is easy enough to filter in the ).
On 25 January, 2016 at 09:30:33, LE FEVRE
FRANCOIS (francois.le-fevre@xxxxxx)
wrote:
Hi Christian,
Thanks for your feedback, you are asking the right
questions.
I am really answering directly to your
question.
Nevertheless here some additional
elements
To my point of view as we are migrating to new
major version (thanks a lot for you email on the API), we could
also take time to improve our Bugzilla workflow.
To my point of view, I would like we follow the
Eclipse convention.
The QA could be in charge to switch from fixed to
verified the bug.
I have found in the Eclipse documentation that
“When the project does a major release, the VERIFIED bugs are
changed to CLOSED.”
Francois
[1]:
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Bugzilla_Use
De :
mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de
Christian W. Damus
Envoyé : lundi 25 janvier 2016 15:04
À : Papyrus Project list
<mdt-papyrus.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Objet : Re: [mdt-papyrus.dev] closing old
bugs
Hi,
When
I run bugzilla reports, I lump all resolved, verified, and closed
bugs together as logically “completed” because (correct me if I’m
wrong) Papyrus doesn’t have a formal QA process in which a QA team
tests resolved bugs to move them into verified state (or reopen
them [1]), after which the original reporter can close them if in
agreement with the verification results.
Some
projects in the Eclipse Modeling family actually use the verified
state to indicate that fixes for bugs that were in the resolved
state have actually been published to the update site. This
transition was at one time automated by the builds.
So, I
guess my question is what precisely do we think would be the value
(for Papyrus) of following bugs through a process beyond the
resolved state? What meaning do we want to assign to verified (if
any) and closed states to distinguish them from resolved? And who
is responsible for transitions through these states?
Cheers,
Christian
[1]:
Note that the very transition from resolved -> reopened implies
a “closedness” of the resolved state.
_______________________________________________
mdt-papyrus.dev mailing list
mdt-papyrus.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-papyrus.dev
|
