Resending as this failed to go through it seems... On 6/15/11 11:47 AM, "Le-Roux Eric (Nokia-MS/Helsinki)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi Shuang, > >On 6/15/11 8:42 AM, "ext Wan, Shuang" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>>[mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 12:36 PM >>> To: Wan, Shuang; Zhou, JieX A >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: [Meego-qa] "HW Verification" field usage >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I wrote yesterday a bug for multiple platforms: >>> Bug 19138 - HW platform field doesn't support multi-selection >>> https://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=19138 >>> >>> And added new one: >>> Bug 19183 - HW Verification field visible even the functionality not >>>ready yet >>> https://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=19183 >>> >> >>Thanks Iekku doing so. >> >>Since this involves bug management process on bug fix and verification. I >>would like Steve could share some basic ideas on this feature especially >>for following items: >> >>There are a couple of platforms that MeeGo needs to support, how we >>record the fix on each platforms in backend? >>This involves which technical choice is used for recording this >>information in DB backend, create a separated custom field for each >>platform or use multiple selection field as suggested by Iekku or any >>other solutions? >> >>In addition, the HW verification field can only hold verification >>information, how we handle the fix integration etc information in each >>platform. And how we say a bug is fixed is really fixed especially for >>bug could be reproduced on several platforms but target date to fix is >>different for each platform? >> >>If we support multiple HW verification, then we may need to change the >>platform field to multiple selectable. So users will be able to identify >>which platforms the bug could be reproduced. Here is the feature request >>for this: >>https://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=18473 > >As Steve mentioned this multiple HW verification feature was accidentally >deployed to production and sandbox. >It's now entirely removed so no confusion for anyone. >As earlier discussed, this implementation has caveats and the points you >raise above require another approach. >As you know, bugzilla upstream brought in a similar feature called >"screening" see >https://landfill.bugzilla.org/bug55970/show_bug.cgi?id=11575 >The patch seems to better address the needs you express above. > >My recommendation is that you and Dayu put up a sandbox with bugzilla >version 4 latest stable (http://www.bugzilla.org/releases/4.0.1/), set it >up with bugs.meego.com database and theme and extensions and we can start >fresh from there rather than trying to tweak our implementation. >Also note that this gives you a chance to demonstrate how you can lose the >CLOSED status and is also a good base for your current work on bug >reporting from packages. >New features in 4.x branch like automatic duplicate detection, >autocomplete for user fields, and all the new hooks are just plain good. > >The stage is yours! > >Go ahead and we can discuss on how to move forward once you have something >to show... > >As agreed, you have to use gitorious to host the code and expose the >changes so we can review them efficiently. >Here is the repository: http://gitorious.org/meego-bugzilla/bmc >You're already familiar with what needs to be done since you kindly >documented it earlier on the ML ;) >This open approach will allow all of us to get a good grasp on what is the >best implementation for any of the needed changes or new features >mentioned above. > >Cheers, >Eric > >> >>Thanks >>Shuang >> >>> Br, >>> Iekku >>> >>> >> inform the changes and update the wiki pages after it's finalized, >>> >we'd better to >>> >> have a bug to track it from the right beginning of the proposal to >>>let >>> >more >>> >> people have more visibilities of this field and its usage and >>> >progress. >>> >> >>> > >>> >+1 >>> >Multiple HW Verifications is an important feature for different roles >>>in >>> >MeeGo. So it's important to have bug or feature entry to elaborate the >>> >design, usages etc. This is important to collect feedbacks and others >>> >will be easy to get the context and follow up. >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> Best Regards, >>> >> Jason >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> MeeGo-qa mailing list >>> >> [email protected] >>> >> http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-qa >>_______________________________________________ >>MeeGo-qa mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-qa > _______________________________________________ MeeGo-qa mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-qa
