On 2019/03/04 11:00:46, Sönke Liebau <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.INVALID>
wrote:
> Thanks Mirko!
>
> For me there are three main questions that we should consider around
> the workflow. If I am missing something, please shout out, I am by no
> means an expert on this!
>
> 1. Do we want an "accepted" state that means someone looked at this
> ticket and it has merit and is not just a user question that is better
> placed on the mailing list/far too broad/... ?
Yes, I think would be good
> 2. Do we want a "reviewable" state?
Yes - because we are going to be dealing with content
> 3. Do we want an explicit "closed" state? The current workflow has
> "resolved" which means something has been committed to address this
> issue and now the original reporter should check whether the issue
> itself has been fixed and transition the issue to either "closed" or
> "reopened".
If an issue is opened and then not accepted, then it could be closed without
being resolved. As mentioned elsewhere, resolved tends to mean some work has
been done that relates to the issue that was raised. So having them both sort
of makes sense.
Thanks
Sharan
> I do like the idea of 1, as it gives us a better option of keeping
> track of whether or not a ticket has been triaged already. If you have
> some time on your hands and want to fix an issue picking from
> "accepted" is easier than potentially sifting through 10 "open" ones
> until you find an actionable one.
>
> I think 2 is really useful and we should definitely have that.
>
> 3 I'm on the fence about, personally I think if the commit doesn't
> meet what the ticket was about then this should have been addressed
> during review. I think this workflow is more suited for a
> customer-service provider situation where the customer needs to sign
> off on a solution.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Best regards,
> Sönke
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:38 AM Mirko Kämpf <mirko.kae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Sönke,
> >
> > I like the proposal to use a workflow with an explicit state for
> > "reviewable" issues.
> > Unfortunately, I do not know how to set it up or how to request this change.
> >
> > +1 ---> Mesos Workflow: https://imgur.com/a/6zWFK4e
> >
> >
> >
> > Am Mo., 4. März 2019 um 11:33 Uhr schrieb Sönke Liebau
> > <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid>:
> >
> > > Bumping to see if really no one has an opinion on this :)
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Sönke Liebau <soenke.lie...@opencore.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah, apologies, wasn't aware of that.
> > > >
> > > > Default Workflow: https://imgur.com/a/EfKcOfL
> > > > Mesos Workflow: https://imgur.com/a/6zWFK4e
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Sönke
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:48 PM Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > (Mailing list swallows attachments Sönke, can you host them
> > > externally?)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:33 PM Sönke Liebau
> > > > > <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Our Jira currently is still operating with the default workflow (see
> > > > > > 1_default_workflow.png) which is fairly basic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Personally I'd like something along the lines of "reviewable" or
> > > > > > "patch available" to symbolize that this is waiting for someone to
> > > > > > take a look at.
> > > > > > Also, it might be an option to triage issues up front, i.e. have
> > > > > > someone look at it and evaluate whether this actually is an issue or
> > > > > > not appropriate. Granted, this can also be covered by closing issues
> > > > > > after looking at them, but that misses the explicit information
> > > > > > whether someone already looked at it, if it is still open.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking through workflows that other projects adopted, the Mesos
> > > > > > workflow closely resembles what I wrote above (see
> > > > > > 2_mesos_workflow.png)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking through some other projects the "patch available-reopen
> > > > > > possible" workflow seems to be fairly common. A lot of variations
> > > > > > just differ by the way they name the "patch available" state.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any thoughts on the route we want to take?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Sönke
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sönke Liebau
> > > > Partner
> > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878
> > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 Wedel - Germany
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sönke Liebau
> > > Partner
> > > Tel. +49 179 7940878
> > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 Wedel - Germany
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dr. rer. nat. Mirko Kämpf
> > Müchelner Str. 23
> > 06259 Frankleben
>
>
>
> --
> Sönke Liebau
> Partner
> Tel. +49 179 7940878
> OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 Wedel - Germany
>
