One of the issues I see with the current process we have for changes
under RTC is that it is hard to keep track of what patches are pending RTC.
Ken suggested that we reintroduce the STATUS file as a way of keeping
track of the status of patches (
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg24780.html ).
On the same thread, Dain suggested introducing a "review-required"
status in JIRA (
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg25122.html )
and is the method of tracking work that I prefer.
PROPOSAL
1. Add a "review-required" and "review-complete" statuses to JIRA. I
thought having two statuses might allow a cleaner workflow in JIRA, but
would be interested in hearing others opinions.
2. To make it easy for those reviewing and voting on the patches (there
could end up being a number of revisions of the patch before it is
accepted) the file names of the patches attached to the JIRA should be
prefixed with the JIRA issue identifier followed by an optional text
followed by a mandatory patch version number (starting at 1).
Example patch names:
GERONIMO-1234-FixNPE-v1
GERONIMO-1234-FixNPE-v2 (second attempt at patch)
GERONIMO-3421-v1
2.1 This status should only be set by a committer (can we can get JIRA
to enforce this?) when they have tested the patch attached to the JIRA
and believe it is ready for review.
2.2 The JIRA should contain all information about the patch. If the
changes were previously discussed on the dev list prior to the JIRA
being created, a summary of the discussions should be moved into the
JIRA so that those reviewing the patch have all the information in one
place. It would also be preferable to add links to the original
discussions on the dev list archives. The way we document changes may
be subject to change (e.g. detailed documentation placed in a linked
JIRA) based upon the outcome of the discussions in the thread "[DISCUSS]
Tracking documentation tasks in JIRA ( was Re: [RTC] Clarification
please from the PMC )"
2.3 Each PMC member who reviews the patch attached to the JIRA must do
the following:
* Add a JIRA comment containing the file name of the patch they
reviewed. This is so there is no confusion if there ends up being
multiple revisions of the patch when collating votes.
* In the JIRA comment add the results of their review (e.g. comments
or a vote). If a PMC member vetos the patch, they must include a
technical justification in their JIRA comments. I propose that when
there is a veto that we leave the status as "review-required", as others
may still want to vote and so that the patch remains getting daily
visibility in the "JIRAs Pending Review" daily email (proposed below).
The committer can then re-submit another patch (where the patch filename
has the version number bumped up)
* If a PMC member is the person who completes the vote ( three
binding +1s and no vetos) for the latest version of the patch then they
should change the status to "review-complete".
3. Non-committers who submit patches will not be able to set this
status. A committer needs to pick up their patch and test it (possibly
making changes to the patch). When the patch is ready the committer
then sets the "review-required" status.
4. Have a daily email automatically sent to the dev list containing
JIRA's pending review. It appears this should be easy to implement as
it would be a variation of the weekly "Unassigned Patches" reports that
are currently in place.
I would be interested in your comments Jason, as you are more familiar
with customizing JIRA.
If this proposal is accepted I will document it as part of the work I
plan to do to document the use of JIRA in
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2080 .
John
