Hi Helge,
Helge Delfs schrieb:
-1 for tagging in IssueTracker, as the tag is redundant (as far as I
can see).
This idea was born not just because the filtering of mails is easier
but the fact it is easier for the team dealing with CWS'se (e.g.
release team) to estimate the severity of issues/CWS'se reading
through the issues-list without building complex queries.
Less space in the summary is a valid argument but I think in most
cases issues written due to errors in scripts mustn't have such a
detailed summary.
Why need issues regarding automation no detailed description? To me as a
volunteer (who is still somehow interested in automation) it is
important to quickly find issues in Issue Tracker. Best mean for this is
the summary.
Ok - if issues for automation are only used by experienced automation
team members (who know the topic of the issue anyway) you do not need a
good description.
Btw - it is sad, that we have no summary of the most recent IRC
QA-Session. The problem that we encountered there was, that the
description of verified issues was often not very clear and not easy to
reproduced. This was caused by the fact hat these have been submitted by
long term qa members directly to the developer. As they often work next
door, they rather talk about the problem, than file a proper issue. This
might speed up theprocess for those two - but other volunteers are los.
Means, volunteers have hardly a chance to help.
At the moment I feel, automation team is going exactly the same route.
André
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
