incubator-bloodhound-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Apache Bloodhound" <bloodhound-...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
Date Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:54:07 GMT
#194: Examine workflow for Bloodhound site
------------------------+--------------------
  Reporter:  gjm        |      Owner:  nobody
      Type:  task       |     Status:  new
  Priority:  major      |  Milestone:
 Component:  siteadmin  |    Version:
Resolution:             |   Keywords:
------------------------+--------------------

Comment (by gjm):

 Replying to [comment:7 jdreimann]:
 > Replying to [comment:6 olemis]:
 > > Replying to [comment:1 jdreimann]:
 > > > I can think of a few things that could help here, some immediate,
 some longer term:
 > > I welcome all these suggestions, yes . Especially sometimes it's a bit
 hard for me to determine assigned tickets having pending patches , for
 instance .
 >
 > I agree. My suggestion for this is the 'pending review' status.
 >
 > > > 2. The status of tickets is currently either 'new', 'assigned',
 'accepted' or 'resolved' and 're-opened' as far as I can tell. In reality
 something like this happens: 'new', 'work in progress', 'pending review',
 'resolved'. (Work usually means code). Matching this more closely and
 providing better control to move between states would help.
 > >
 > > The only thing I'd like to add is that sometimes between 'work in
 progress', and 'pending review' , ticket enters an state in which nothing
 can be done until something happens
 >
 > Your examples describe a blocker issue in my opinion, some internal and
 some 3rd party. Internal means the ticket that is blocking progress should
 be changed to 'blocker', external means we should add a ticket type that
 is 'External' or '3rd party' and assign it a 'blocker' status if it's a
 blocker.

 I would have no particular reason to say that we would need to raise a
 ticket about an external blocker to a tickets progress. It would depend on
 whether someone else required a ticket to work with a third party to
 unblock the issue. The main thing is that the ticket that is blocked notes
 the block and references any ticket that deals with it.

 So, that just leaves the state that the ticket is in - the ticket might be
 expected to remain owned by the same person but it should change to a
 "requires info" state or similar. This really depends on the amount of
 work that has been achieved up to that point and whether the owner will be
 able to take up the ticket again soon after the blocking issue is cleared.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/194#comment:8>
Apache Bloodhound <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/>
The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker

Mime
View raw message