This one time, at band camp, Werner Guttmann said:
WG>Personally, I think it's a great step *forward* to see such a list of
WG>items/issues/change requests/bugs/'unidentified problems/etc. in one place ...
WG>8-). Though what I just said hopefully highlights the problem as well.
WG>Naturally, we all seem to disagree on the severity of the issues outlined below
WG>(not to mention the ones not mentioned at all). I think we should take Thomas'
WG>list and make it more complete.
WG>
WG>Completeness for me is defined as trying to categorize the problems along the
WG>line of some of the categories mentioned above, assess things such as risk (of a
WG>possible patch having negative side effects), cost (time it takes), progress
WG>(work started, progress made, etc.) and then ... and only then ... take it from
WG>there.
WG>
WG>For example, it's not enough to just say ...
WG>
WG>3/ Foreign key as part of primary key
WG>
WG>I think that we have seen (too) many emails on castor-dev asking questions about
WG>this bug (is it really a bug?), and still we have not made any progress on this.
WG>Progress in the sense that we do not know whether it really is a bug (i.e. is
WG>Castor meant to support these kind of relationships?), whether anybody has
WG>already identified where the problem could be (e.g. FieldMolder, and the problem
WG>only surfaces when executing OQL queries that traverse such relationships), etc.
WG>
WG>In other words, we need to get more structured, and this implies that the likes
WG>of Thomas (and others) need to share what they already know. It's not enough to
WG>just know that there's a problem, and that it might take x months of man-time to
WG>fix this (and that's after some other stuff had been refactored). This 'hidden'
WG>knowledge needs to made visible, put into one place ... if I e.g. knew that the
WG>problem has already been identified, I (we as a team here) could start debugging
WG>things much more effectively.
WG>
WG>Any opinions on what's the best way to go about this, and more importantly,
WG>would we have the commitment of the current committers ?
That is *exactly* why I suggested putting all this stuff into
Bugzilla. It's really the only true living artifact on the web site.
The web site itself does not get updated very often because it
requires intervention from people at Intalio. Bugzilla, however,
can be updated by anyone with an account (committers). It doesn't
require an Intalio sys admin. Also, it allows anyone to execute
queries because they're read-only. Additionally, committers could
place notes about defects/enhancements in one place that can be
updated at any time and that can be viewed by all.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","<0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F9E<G)E=\$\!F<FEI+F-O;0\`\`");'
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
unsubscribe castor-dev
