[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GMG-Devel] New ticket workflows, and relevant meeting

From: Christopher Allan Webber
Subject: Re: [GMG-Devel] New ticket workflows, and relevant meeting
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 13:43:03 -0500
User-agent: mu4e; emacs

We had our meeting... Here's what came out of it:

Participants: paroneayea, shawnrisk, freedeb, tsyesika

 - First we discussed the states I suggested in the email below
   Generally people agreed that the states are all good but we shouldn't
   have needs-work since that's making things too complex, just pass
   back to in-progress when things are done.

   So moving these states into place should happen soonish.

 - There was a lot of discussion about the problem of stuck, claimed
   tickets that haven't had any activity for a while.  Generally it's
   agreed that we should have a filter in Trac that lists claimed
   tickets that are in-progress that haven't haven't had updates for
   some time.

   How to update users?  Should we create notify scripts?  (Risk: those
   tend to annoy people)  Should it all be done by hand?  Maybe some
   tooling in-between that can help triagers.

 - We discussed the current "triage workflow" we have and what kind of
   future workflows we might want.

   - Currently Shawnrisk pulls up 5 tickets or so and has a contributor
     go through them with him.  This has been great in many ways but
     Shawnrisk raised two primary frustrations for him:
     1) If he is the only one looking for tickets, and 2 or 3 people   
        say want to help with tickets, how does that work?
     2) The ticket days are only done when Shawnrisk is around and
        others are available so this is a very limited time.  Shawnrisk
        says if we were able to extend this to all day would be better.

   - We talked about these bits, and I mentioned I've been talking to
     other projects (especially thanks to Greg Grossmeier for taking
     time) to figure out how they handle triage workflows; could we
     learn from them to make things easier for ourselves?

   - Currently also I read every bug update that happens (they all go to
     my bugmail folder) to try to make sure I don't miss patches that
     need to be reviewed; Greg encouraged on call that a state we should
     shoot for is where bug triage can happen in background and I can
     trust it's going on and contributions are being made (even things
     being merged sometimes!) without me overviewing everything.

   - This doesn't mean lack of bug review days; ideally finding a much
     more specific set of bugs to work on would be good

   - Deb Nicholson has mentioned interest in joining in helping with
     workflow stuff also, she and ShawnRisk agreed that maybe a good
     route for now is for her to "shadow" him on triage days for a few
     weeks and then maybe they can discuss further?

That's the summary anyway!  Good meeting!
 - Chris

Christopher Allan Webber writes:

> Somehow this never got sent out when I wrote it originally!
> Christopher Allan Webber writes:
>> Heya all,
>> I've been talking to a number of people trying to get a sense if we
>> can't improve our ticket workflows.  So, a couple of things.
>> 1) We're having a meeting about it on IRC!  Thursday May 2nd at 3PM UTC
>>    / 11AM EDT.  ShawnRisk, freedeb, and I will be there.  You're welcome
>>    to come as well if interested.
>> 2) I've been thinking of adding some new states.  Here roughly is the
>>    list of states I've been thinking about:
>> open states:
>>  - new  <- bug first opened
>>  - confirmed/accepted  <- someone has triaged this to a state where
>>                           we generally know it exists or expect it to be
>>                           worked on
>>  - in-progress  <- someone has actually started doing specific work on it
>>  - needs-review  <- Needs code review or needs someone with commit
>>                     access to pull it in.
>> # - needs-work   <- possibly a state it can be set back to if it's been
>> #                   reviewed but determined there still needs to be work
>> #                   done... maybe we could just use in-progress though.
>> close states would be as they presently are:
>>  - fixed
>>  - invalid
>>  - duplicate
>>  - worksforme
>> ... I think this would allow for better triaging that we have now.  But
>> anyway, the meeting will be a good place to discuss all this. ;)
>> Cya then, quite possibly!
>>  - Chris
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]