Keith M Wesolowski writes:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 02:47:26PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> > That seems broken, but I suppose that's my non-ON point of view, coming
> > from consolidations where the engineer marks the bug "fix available" when
> > they submit the fix for code review and "integrated" when they putback to
> > the master gate.   Perhaps ON needs to reconsider how it uses the fields.
> > (Of course, having the bugs.o.o website show "Fix in progress" for anything
> >  from "Bug filed, but being ignored" to "Fixed but not yet integrated" makes
> >  this doubly hard for external contributors.)
> The ON integration message tells you to optionally mark your bugs Fix
> Available as soon as you putback.  The gatekeepers mark them Fix
> Delivered when the build is closed.  So if the first part of that
> became mandatory, confusion over open bugs would be substantially
> reduced.

Having engineers rather than gatekeepers marking bugs as "integrated,"
as Alan describes for non-ON gates, seems broken to me.  The
gatekeepers are the ones who must verify the contents of a release,
not the engineers.  The "integrated" state is what I think test folks
should rely on to determine the content of a build.

The "fix in progress" state in bugster can only be set once you have a
target _build_.  Most people in ON seem to use "fix in progress" to
mean "in code review and nearing putback now."

James Carlson, KISS Network                    <james.d.carlson at>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

Reply via email to