Sorry Mike, this was intended to go to the list, not to your personal email account :)
Cheers, James ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: James Stallings II <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:20 AM Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] mantis resolved vs. closed To: Mike Mazur <[email protected]> Good morning I'll take these from the top :) On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Mike Mazur <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:47:14 -0600 > James Stallings II <[email protected]> wrote: > > > suppose instead of setting the ticket to 'resolved' and closing it, > > we set it to 'resolution pending test' and leave it open > > I don't think there's enough difference between "resolved" and > "resolution pending test". Also I don't think we need to complicate > our workflow any more for a couple reasons: > > First, we don't have a dedicated QA team that will go through all > "resolution pending test" tickets and verify them, and apparently the > originals submitters don't care enough most of the time either. On the contrary - we do have a fairly dedicated team of people sheparding mantis. I'm one of them. I spend a fair time each month first testing and then closing old or ancient mantii. Granted, it's been a month or two since I've done this; new job has been a bit demanding in terms of time and attention. The problem is that 'Resolved' implies a certain degree of finality: 'I've submitted a patch, your issue is fixed, goodbye' is the message I get when I see a patch submitted and a ticket placed in 'Resolved' status. 'Resolved Pending Test' or 'Resolved Pending Feedback' says to me, 'I have made a patch for your issue which i think addresses the problem and the ball is now in your court'. > > > Second, what's so difficult with re-opening an issue that's been > resolved if the problem is not fixed? Since most of the time the > problem *is* fixed, why add this extra policy overhead for the few > cases where it isn't fixed? I beg to differ here; the issue addressed by any given patch tends to remain problematic after the patch about as often as not; if not in the original incarnation, then in some related fashion. If most patches represented a fix, we wouldn't need mantis at all, I think. > > Third, if your issue was "resolved" by a developer who submitted a > patch, or *gasp* even "closed" (if it was Justin, perhaps) without the > issue being fixed, it's not the end of the world. Don't take it > personally. Give the developer the benefit of the doubt, and ask > yourself why the developer felt the issue was fixed. Maybe the > description of the bug was inadequate? Maybe a better test case or > clearer steps to reproduce, expected and actual results would help > everyone understand the issue better? After reviewing the information > in the bug and the proposed fix, you can provide constructive comments > when you reopen the issue. I understand it isnt the end of the world, and I dunno what Justin has to do with this LOL but: We have a feature-rich trouble ticketing system that is capable of tracking an issue with a full set of supporting notes and workflow states through the process of resolution. Unfortunately, we are throwing this functionality out because of a perception that no one follows up on the bug reports. If we aren't going to use the mantis software to track isues, work-in-progress, and solutions, why have it at all? I do in fact test features; I provide the most accurate data surrounding tests as I possibly can; and I do follow up on my tickets as best I can, given the other demands of life and work. As it occurs, I was engaged in just such a process with idb when I returned to the mantis to engage in the next stage of the process to find the ticket closed/resolved. It was a bit like finding a door closed in my face. All I'm really asking is that we use terms that more accurately describe the state of the issue and reserve the closed disposition sufficiently to allow testing of the patch. Otherwise we might as well ditch mantis and keep a list of active issues on the wiki. Cheers James > > > Thanks, > Mike > -- =================================== http://osgrid.org http://del.icio.us/SPQR http://twitter.com/jstallings2 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/770/a49 -- =================================== http://osgrid.org http://del.icio.us/SPQR http://twitter.com/jstallings2 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/770/a49
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
