incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Koželj <pe...@digiverse.si>
Subject Re: ticket associated with multiple versions (Was: Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #234: Quick Ticket: link to /newticket, description and priority)
Date Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:01:01 GMT
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Gary Martin <gary.martin@wandisco.com>wrote:

> On 18/10/12 13:00, Peter Koželj wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Gary Martin <gary.martin@wandisco.com>*
>> *wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Peter Koželj" <peter@digiverse.si> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Olemis Lang <olemis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On 10/17/12, Gary Martin <gary.martin@wandisco.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/10/12 17:15, Joe Dreimann wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 17 Oct 2012, at 17:00, Peter Koželj <peter@digiverse.si>
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Gary Martin
>>>>>>>> <gary.martin@wandisco.com>**wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  On 17/10/12 12:03, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It gets interesting where really you want to raise a
bug against
>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>> versions but it is not the end of the world. The main
thing is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>
>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> is a prompt for a primary version to raise against -
further
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> versions
>>>>
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> probably be expected to be noted in the description and
those
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dealing
>>>>
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> the ticket could then determine whether further tickets
are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> needed.
>>>>
>>>>> I was just thinking about the multiple versions per ticket (bug)
>>>>>>>> support.
>>>>>>>> This needs to be formal and not just a in-comment or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in-description
>>>>
>>>>> text.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> have some ideas how we could go about this but it is off
topic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for this
>>>>
>>>>> ticket. I'll start a separate discussion on the subject at some
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> point
>>>>
>>>>> in
>>>>>
>>>>>> the fure (opening multiple unrelated tickets should be good
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> enough at
>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> moment).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The most obvious answer or me would be to allow to select multiple
>>>>>>> versions in the field, similar to how Multiple Select works in
the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chosen
>>>>>
>>>>>> plugin:
>>>>>>> http://harvesthq.github.com/**chosen/<http://harvesthq.github.com/chosen/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Joe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> In my case, I am not so much concerned with how it looks as much
as
>>>>>>
>>>>> how
>>>>
>>>>> it would be supported by the model. Depending on the way things
>>>>>> currently work, we might want to use a fresh field rather than
>>>>>>
>>>>> subvert
>>>>
>>>>> the use of the current version field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Two suggestions ...
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. custom fields
>>>>> 2. keywords ... or something similar ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Olemis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
>>>>> Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> Featured article:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Ticket needs to be resolved for each individual version separately.
So
>>>> we
>>>> would need at least status per version.
>>>> And when the solutions for different versions must be different, one
>>>> would
>>>> also appreciate separate descriptions, comments... (but I am not sure
>>>> this
>>>> is common enough that it would warent special support).
>>>>
>>>> We could stick to ticket per version (as what you have to do now) but
>>>> link
>>>> the tickets together with special relation type (when we have ticket
>>>> relations going). Basically what Gary is suggesting with subtickets but
>>>> build on top of the ticket relation concept (parent/child, duplicate,
>>>> version subticket,...) that we need to establish first.
>>>>
>>>>  >From the UI perspective, we could still allow for bulk create of these
>>>
>>>> tickets by selecting multiple versions in the version field and provide
>>>> the
>>>> user with ability of on overview of all the linked tickets. Again, also
>>>> built on top of ticket relations.
>>>>
>>>> Personally I am still not decided whether I would rather see multiple
>>>> versions per ticket or version specific subtickets. But I do need the
>>>> ability to resolve them separately.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>> For me it would have to be a user choice as to whether a multi version
>>> ticket should be split or treated as a single entity. In the latter case
>>> I
>>> would be happy with a single resolution.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>      Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>  As we opened this discussion I have been thinking about this some more.
>>
>> 1. Supporting per version comments, descriptions and attachments just does
>> not seem worth it. It would complicate things technically as well for the
>> user for very little benefit.
>>
>> 2. Tickets are not necessarily resolved in the versions to which
>> they apply (bug for version 1.3 is resolved in 1.4, ticket planned for 1.4
>> is sliped to 1.5...). It becomes obvious that we need more then
>> one multiversion ticket field
>>
>> 3. I still want to be able to plan and track progress. Versions are
>> essential here, so I need that resolution per version thing.
>>     Taking it all into account we would need 2 multiversion fields
>> (affected
>> and planned versions) and resolution per planned version:
>>
>>    o A customer/tester will file a ticket about a bug that affects some
>> versions.
>>    o Project manager will make a plan in which versions a fix is necessary
>> (typically next planned release and a hot fix version for whatever
>> customer
>> is currently using)
>>    o Developers will resolve per version as a solution is being applied
>> across all the planned versions.
>>
>> It seems that affected versions only apply to bugs and should be the same
>> as planned for other ticket types.
>> Ticket should be considered resolved only when all planned versions have
>> some kind of resolution. It can be the same for all versions or vastly
>> different.
>>
>> I guess I am leaning toward the multiversion,multiresolution per ticket
>> approach. User can still use ticket relations if he has the need to split
>> the ticket into ticket/version.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
> Clearly the way that the process works will be somewhat dependent on which
> versions remain supported. Equally it depends on the way that they work. A
> likely scenario is that a solution would first be created on trunk for
> future releases and the fix applied or adapted to other supported versions.
>
> I think that multiresolution might be going a bit too far as it is not
> just multiresolution but multiple parallel workflow as a whole. I think it
> is better to model the process on multple tickets instead as the user
> benefits from all the per-ticket behaviour.
>
> So, another alternative would be to see if we can create a combined ticket
> view for tickets in any relationship structure. The nice thing about this
> would that it could benefit more situations than just multiple versions.
>
> Cheers,
>     Gary
>

Yeah, I was thinking the same way at first. But in 99.9% of cases having
descriptions, comments and attachments scattered across multiple tickets is
undesired. We would have to try really hard in the UI to prevent that. And
we manage to hide it, wat is the point of multiple tickets anyway?

I do not assume per version workflows with per version resolutions. Just a
constraint that would not allow for ticket to be closed until all planned
versions are resolved.

Anyway, I am still undecided about this.

Cheers,
Peter

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message