On Feb 18, 2009, at 6:50 AM, Istvan Albert wrote:
> On Feb 18, 9:38 am, "C. Titus Brown" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> second, I would prefer to institute a "needs review" tag to emphasize >> that the proposed patch needs code review by someone other than the >> primary author. In other words, replace "Fixed" with "NeedsReview". > > Yes, I agree. The word Fixed indicates that the matter is closed, > maybe that's why those issues pile up. And the Needs Review should > also show up on the main list. The reason that Fixed issues are piling up is that I fixed lots of issues, but am following the discipline of assuming that all fixes should be verified by someone else before they are closed. Of course I test the fix myself, but from a human point of view it's a conflict of interest for a developer to sign off on his own fixes... > > > In fact just a moment ago I made the same mistake of not understanding > why a fixed issue needs to be verified ... now you'll get two messages > about it. The chain should be something like: > > New -> Accepted -> Started -> Needs Review -> Fixed Based on my years running a development team in a Silicon Valley software company, I would suggest that it's best to think of this process in human terms, i.e. *who* does something, rather than *what*. In a professional team, terms like "Verified", "Needs Review" and even "test" are ambiguous because they could apply to several different stages in the process (e.g. what was verified? The original bug report? The fix?). Asking "has this fix been tested?" is ambiguous; every developer runs some kind of test on his fix before committing it, but that's very different from asking whether QA (Quality Assurance) has completed their independent testing of the fix (which ought to follow a systematic set of rules). Organizationally, the key question is *who* has completed the test. So I prefer to refer to this last phase as "QA" -- this term is specific and unambiguous, because it refers to a particular human role in the developer team. - instead of "Started", I prefer "Assigned". Again, the critical question is *who* is going to take responsibility for the issue. - instead of "Needs Review" I'd prefer something like "Fixed for QA" as the official term. This is totally unambiguous. It gives the developer the warm, fuzzy feeling of having completed his part of the mission, while making clear who has to pick up the ball next (QA). - The final stage should be called "Closed". This communicates that the whole team has closed the issue permanently. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pygr-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pygr-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
