Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: process for filing issues
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:16:43 -0600
Message-ID: 
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A49010A36EB@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
Thread-Topic: process for filing issues
Thread-Index: AciaX6tuBVOpPe/pRxOwxZKwKOs+QwA7xhTQ
References: <47F66819.5020400@roguewave.com> <47FCEFA1.8030802@roguewave.com>
From: "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemings@roguewave.com>
To: <dev@stdcxx.apache.org>

=20
I'd like to propose the following change to the process for filing
issues. =20

"After an issue is created and categorized as a defect (bug), it
can not be assigned to a particular release until the scope of the
issue is determined (i.e. the causality of the issue needs to be
analyzed)."

If this is not done, the scope of the issue can easily fall outside
the plans for the release.  If -- for example -- we're planning to
release a new version -- even a patch release -- in a matter of
weeks or days, assigning 8 new unscoped issues to the release within
a 2 day timeframe will only wreck those plans.

Would like to see a vote taken on this proposal.

Thanks,
Brad.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:33 AM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: process for filing issues
>=20
> I put this up on the Wiki:
>    http://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/FilingIssues
>=20
> There are few kinks that I'd like us to iron out, including which
> version to assign a new issue to when it's not known to exist in
> the most recent release (e.g., for 4.2.1, should it be trunk,
> 4.2.x., or 4.2.1?), and under what conditions should failures in
> newly added tests should be considered a regression. Let's discuss.
>=20
> Martin Sebor wrote:
> > Here's the process I use for reference. Let me know if you have
> > suggestions for improvements, otherwise I'd like to put it up
> > on the Wiki as the recommended process to follow.
> >=20
> >  1. using the cross-build result pages currently at
> >       http://people.apache.org/~sebor/stdcxx/results/builds/
> >     scan result page for an uncharacterized error (build problem,
> >     abnormal exit, unexpected difference in example output)
> >=20
> >  2. check other versions of the same platforms for the same error
> >=20
> >  3. check 4.2.0 results for the same error on the closest
> >     available platform
> >     http://people.apache.org/~sebor/stdcxx-4.2.0/results/builds/
> >=20
> >  4. file an issue for the problem
> >     *  if the problem is platform-specific, mention the platform
> >        in the Summary (e.g., [Sun C++ 5.8/Solaris/SPARC])
> >     *  if it's a regression from 4.2.0, check the Regression box,
> >        set Affects Version/s to trunk, and schedule for 4.2.1
> >     *  otherwise (not a regression), set Affects Version/s to
> >        4.2.0
> >     *  include as much detail in Description as possible (use
> >        the {noformat} tag to disable Jira formatting of command
> >        lines, code snippets, and program output)
> >     *  set the Severity field as appropriate
> >     *  try to asses the Priority of the problem based on the
> >        platform (Primary, Secondary, Best Effort), the Severity
> >        of the problem (signal is usually worse than compilation
> >        error), and the area of the library it affects (an error
> >        in a test due to a compiler bug is of lower priority than
> >        a runtime error pointing to std::string)
> >     *  if possible, take a guess at the effort required in fixing
> >        the problem by setting the Original Estimate
> >=20
> > Martin
>=20
>=20