sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: Jason Flatt <jason AT flattfamily.com>
- To: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:52:36 -0800
On Wednesday 28 January 2004 12:43 am, Eric Sandall wrote:
> Quoting Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>:
> > just some random musings:
> > I like the idea of a test sorcery as a staging area for stable
> > releases. Also, I think that maybe we should have the concept of a bug
> > reviewer, someone else on the team that has to review the change and
> > make sure that the fix works and doesn't break anything, the reviewer
> > can be choosen at random from other sorcery team members. Then when
> > the reviewer thinks that the fix is good, doesn't break anything, and
> > has tested it reasonably, it can be pushed down to the test release.
>
> Sounds like what the person fixing the bug should do anyways. ;) However, a
> second set of eyes would be good as well. Any volunteers (even one not from
> the Sorcery Team)?
>
I believe it is a great idea that all sorcery fixes/updates should be
reviewed
by a second pair of eyes, but our sorcery team is so small right now, that I
doubt it is going to happen anytime soon. Maybe it would be best to just
get /anyone/ with a few free minutes and /some/ knowledge of bash to review
for obvious errors and go with that for now.
> > Also we seem to have this situation where we mark bugs as 'fixed' and
> > then they sit around waiting to be verified and closed. Maybe we ought to
> > specify the protocol a little better. Where I work the reporter is the
> > one to mark the bug as closed when they decide that the bug is actually
> > fixed to their satisfaction, otherwise they reopen it.
>
> I thought that was SOP anyways, but I guess we don't have it documented
> explicitly. Do we have a "HOWTO write bugs"?
Initially, I was confused about the bug opening and closing process (it's
possible I may still be confused about it). It's entirely likely that others
are confused about it as well, and having an official HOWTO or FAQ would be a
good thing to help clear up the confusion.
--
Jason Flatt (jason @ flattfamily . com)
Father of five (http://www.flattfamily.com/)
Linux user (http://www.sourcemage.org/)
IRC Nick: Oadae Channels: #sourcemage, #lvlug Server: irc.freenode.net
PGP Key: E992213F - 0254 9DB7 BE0E 312D 8352 6E39 0700 FB95 E992 213F
-
[SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Eric Sandall, 01/27/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Andrew, 01/27/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Eric Sandall, 01/28/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Jason Flatt, 01/28/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Ondra Tomecka, 01/28/2004
- Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance, Eric Schabell, 01/28/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Ondra Tomecka, 01/28/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Jason Flatt, 01/28/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Eric Sandall, 01/28/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Paul, 01/27/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Andrew, 01/27/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Paul, 01/27/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Andrew, 01/27/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Paul, 01/27/2004
- Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance, Andrew, 01/27/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Paul, 01/27/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Andrew, 01/27/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Paul, 01/27/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Andrew, 01/27/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Eric Schabell, 01/28/2004
- Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance, Eric Sandall, 01/28/2004
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] Sorcery quality assurance,
Andrew, 01/27/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.