Thorsten Ziehm wrote: > Hi all, > > could this the starting point that QA have to set CWS back to the CWS > owner, when a result of tinderbox is red? Then I will add this > information to the Wiki page and will link it to the QA CWS approval > process.
No, please don't do so. First some requirements must be met, my personal POV is: (1) If a tinderbox build is "red" it must be possible to find out the reason within minutes, possibly with one or two mouse clicks. (2) If the reason for the "red" state is that the build broke because of a machine or infrastructure problem it should be ignored. (3) It the reason is a "real" build error the error message must be easily accessible. (4) The developer that fixed the error must be able to restart the tinderbox build immediately to get a result in an acceptable time frame. AFAIK there are some people already discussing the possible work flow. So we don't need to rush things. For the same reason why we have specs and QA for our product we should have some minimal quality requirements for our processes. I have outlined mine above, others may have other additional requirements. For me a process that rejects CWS with "red" tinderbox build does not meet these quality requirements at the moment. A new process like this one must be formerly agreed on by *all* participants. And it must be tested for some time (like we test our products) before it is rolled out and made mandatory for all CWS. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
