It's not referring to two different things, it's just that there are
multiple paths that can lead to that state.
What about reassigning? Should we be reassigning the jira when
transitioning to "REVIEWABLE" or "RESOLVED", to the person who is reviewing
or verifying?
I personally prefer to not reassign the issue, but rather have separate
fields for "reviewer" and "verifier/QA contact".
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Chris Westin <cwes...@maprtech.com> wrote:
> It seems wrong to use one state ("IN PROGRESS") to mean two different
> things.
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hey Everybody,
> >
> > INFRA-8766 has been pending for a while to improve our workflow and match
> > it to JIRA. It just got resolved so let's try to make sure that we
> fairly
> > represent the status of the issues. Among other things, this will help
> new
> > contributors understand what is going on. If we see additional things we
> > need, we can always request those things.
> >
> > The workflow can be seen at [1].
> >
> > Here is my proposed mapping of the new workflow to our process.
> >
> > New bug starts in OPEN.
> > When someone starts working on it, they move it to IN PROGRESS.
> > When someone puts a patch up for review, move to REVIEWABLE
> > When a patch is reviewed and has pending changes, move to IN PROGRESS
> > When patch is +1'd, move to ACCEPTED
> > When a patch is merged, move to RESOLVED
> > When an issue is verified, move to CLOSED
> > When an issue is found to not be fixed, move to REOPENED
> >
> > Let me know if people think we should use these states or transitions
> > differently.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Jacques
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12703522/Screen%20Shot%202015-03-09%20at%2022.41.34.png
> >
>
--
Steven Phillips
Software Engineer
mapr.com
