Dan Steinicke wrote: > I would a little discussion about what our process is for bringing in > new features, as far as I know we don't have one.
I believe this was in response to my bug https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11139 > 0) It should be discussed on dev Done. > 1) Towards the end of discussion on a new feature there should be a > "last call" proposal sent out that clearly describes what the proposed > change is. I didn't do it this time since it seemed it was relatively small change, and I wasn't 100% sure of the details of the implementation at that point. Also there was no change from the initial proposal, so I did not think of sending an email. > 2) At the end of the discussion there should be a "Decision:" email that > sums up what was decided There was no change from the initial proposal, so I did not think of sending an email. > 3) The new feature should have a bug, and it should be marked as a task There is a bug, although I should have marked it as enhancement so that was my mistake. I don't really understand the usage of the task keyword, so I am unsure about that. > 4) The bug should contain the summary from the "decision" email and link > to the discussion thread. Normally I do this, but this time I was sloppy filing the bug. So yes, in principle I think that is a good process, but depending on the size of the the feature, simplicity and the amount of discussion, some steps could be omitted. Now, I don't think QA should waste time trying to find the information they need to test something. If it is not trivially found, ask. It is perfectly OK to request in the bug a link to dev discussion and to request step-by-step testing instructions. -- Heikki Toivonen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
