On Feb 5, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or do we want to go to a system where we only create tasks to > test/document features that are completed? That might make it easier > for the manager to see what's really still pending. So that's sort of what I did, except too many people had features that weren't realistically going to hit in time for 4.1.0 at the time we created them. Those QA and doc tasks were added pretty late in the cycle, which is another concern about folks being realistic. Sure, many features will slip on every release. But this many? Sounds like folks were assuming too much, and not heeding the requests to pull things out of 4.1.0 preemptively. > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi > <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:53 PM >>> To: Animesh Chaturvedi >>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating >>> their own >>> Jira tickets? >>> >>> Someone created sub-tickets for ours (QA, etc). It doesn't feel right to >>> close >>> them until those pending subtasks are also completed. I made a comment that >>> the features were completed and merged, and assumed that the owners of the >>> sub tasks would update the ticket as well. >> [Animesh>] Yes agreed they need to be closed when those subtasks are done by >> their respective owners >> >>> So perhaps at least some of it is just understanding how the flow is >>> supposed to >>> work. >
