incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Heads up][code] Apache Lucene updated to version 2.9.4
Date Sun, 13 May 2012 18:51:46 GMT
On 05/13/12 08:57, Rob Weir wrote:
> ...
> Whew!  I thought I was the only non-perfect person here ;-)

:)

> But seriously, no large development effort can ever rely on perfect
> (or near-perfect) developers.  That approach doesn't scale.   We need
> to rely on an overall process that can efficiently find errors, and
> find them early.
>
> So I wonder, in cases like this, where we're upgrading a library that
> might cause functional regressions, whether we should do something
> like this:
>
> 1) Open a BZ issue for the task, e.g., upgrading a particular library.
>
> 2) In the issue, describe the general functionality that may be
> effected by the library upgrade
>
> 3) This then gives the QA volunteers a "head's up" that they should do
> some deeper testing in this area.  (They probably don't read every
> message on ooo-commits)
>
> 4) It also gives us a place where we can look for producing release
> notes for 3.5.
>
> Does this make sense?
>

Makes perfect sense.

In this case I reused BZ issue 115241 which already existed for
the Lucene update. I didn't note it on the top as there were more
changes going on. After committing the change (and this time
the log was rather descriptive of the change) I added a
reference to the commit as I always do.

The issue, I think, is not really what to do but how to improve
the workflow: I set the bug to RESOLVED FIXED. Is this the
correct way to give a heads up for QA?

Pedro.

Mime
View raw message