incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <>
Subject Re: [QA] Workflow for Issues
Date Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:58:49 GMT

On 10.07.2012 14:42, Regina Henschel wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann schrieb:
>> Hi Regina,
>> On 10.07.2012 01:21, Regina Henschel wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> in times with CWS and EIS there was a description of Issues lifecyle,
>>> Some parts are lost and others totally outdated.
>>> But I think, that such an information is useful and start a draft in
>>> Do you agree to provide such information?
>>> If yes, where to put it?
>>> If yes, please improve the text.
>> Thanks for your work - the new information looks good.
>> One minor remark:
>> May be we can use status "VERIFIED" for a two step verification:
>> First step, verification on a dev. snapshot or on built version or ...
>> --> change status to "VERIFIED".
>> Second step, verification on a release candidate --> closing issue.
>> It is just an idea for discussion.
>> The two step verification would decrease the possibility that a
>> sucessful made fix may be got lost by another change before the next
>> release is coming out.
> We had this two step verification before and end up in a lot of verified but not
> closed issues. Which in the end lead to a large campaign to close all those
> issues. Such two step verification would need an automatic "reminder". I do not
> know, whether it is possible in Bugzilla or how it can be organized in other ways.

Ah, yes I am remembering now this "campaign".
Thus, my idea would only work, if we have volunteers to work on the second step.
If we want such a two-step verification we could have a release blocker issue 
for it - "assure that all issues fixed and verified for this version are closed 
- Bugzilla query X have to be empty."

Best regards, Oliver.

View raw message