[SM-Discuss] ISO/Installer bug process improvement
Seth Alan Woolley
seth at positivism.org
Mon Sep 12 23:12:46 EDT 2005
Looks good except "re-verify" should imply "re-verify-bug".
Otherwise somebody might think "re-verify-fix" (look at the last
sentence). Wouldn't want that, I think.
Personally, I'd rather you call it "re-verify-fix" and reverse the
semantics of the last flag as "re-verify-bug" is still vague.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:32:06PM -0500, David Kowis wrote:
> I'd like to let everyone know about a bit of ISO/Installer bug process changes
> (improvements hopefully :) )
> There's two new flags for Installer bugs:
> Fixed in devel
> Re-Verify on latest ISO
> Fixed in devel: This means that the code to fix the bug has been written and is
> in our SCM (p4 at the moment). Reason for this being, ISO generation takes a
> "non-zero" amount of time. Code fixes may be submitted but it might be up to a
> week, or longer, until the code is actually evident on an ISO.
> Re-Verify on latest ISO: This means that a bug might have fallen to a back
> burner and the problem may not exist anymore. Since we're moving to the next
> generation scripts, there's a bunch of "old" bugs that were filed against the
> 0.9.4 series of ISO s that need revalidation against the new ones. That's mostly
> the reason for this flag, to clean out our "cobweb" bugs.
> The process of Installer bugs should go like this:
> 1. A bug is submitted
> * Fill in all the fields! (Hardware and Version are really important)
> 2. It then gets assigned to someone who'll work on it.
> 3. Then when the bug gets fixed in the SCM (p4) the flag "Fixed in devel" will
> be set
> 4. After the ISO comes out, all bugs that have been marked with the flag "Fixed
> in devel" will be marked "Fixed"
> 5. Then it's up to the bug submitters/ISO testers to verify that they've been
> For the Re-Verify process:
> 1. A developer will flag a bug "re-verify" -> "?"
> 2. Then the submitter/ISO tester should ensure that they've got the latest and
> greatest ISO and verify the bug's existence
> * If it's still valid "re-verify" -> "+"
> * If it's no longer valid "re-verify" -> "-"
> 3. The bug will then be dealt with accordingly
> All the bugs that have been marked fixed need to be verified before the next ISO
> is released to ensure that progress is being made and our releases are solid.
> Thanks for your time,
> David Kowis
> ISO Team Lead - www.sourcemage.org
> SourceMage GNU/Linux
> Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier
> ways to do something.
> - Robert Heinlein
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss at lists.ibiblio.org
Seth Alan Woolley [seth at positivism.org], SPAM/UCE is unauthorized
Quality Assurance Team Leader & Security Team: Source Mage GNU/linux
Linux so advanced, it may as well be magic http://www.sourcemage.org
Secretary Pacific Green Party of Oregon http://www.pacificgreens.org
Key id FDCEE733 = 5302 B414 64C4 6112 3454 E082 99F0 69DC FDCE E733
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20050912/0f2b1422/attachment.bin
More information about the SM-Discuss