On Oct 6, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Jason Grout wrote: > > Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> On Oct 1, 2009, at 7:17 PM, Jason Grout wrote: >> >>> Robert Bradshaw wrote: >>> >>>> I think process rather than ownership centric is a good move. >>>> Certainly better than what we have. Is there a "merged" transition >>>> from positive review to closed? >>> I was imagining that the release maintainer would close the ticket >>> when >>> it was merged, like what is done now. Why should we have a separate >>> merged stage? >> >> Ignore the noise--I forgot it was the special * state to closed. >> >>>> How about "incomplete" or "undecided" for needs_info? (Maybe >>>> needs_info is the best name, just throwing ideas out there.) >>> I was trying to go for names that indicated what needed to be >>> done to >>> move the ticket forward; for that reason, I like "needs info" >>> better. >>> >>> I imagine a ticket will go into that state if the work has stalled >>> because, for example: >>> >>> * an issue needs to be raised and decided on sage-devel >>> * a licensing issue needs to be worked out to okay the inclusion >>> into Sage >>> * a bug in an outside package needs to be confirmed >>> >>> Basically, if I'm working on a ticket, but then realize that to >>> make any >>> progress, I need to ask around about something, the ticket goes into >>> "needs info". To me, that state means that work on the ticket has >>> been >>> postponed. >> >> Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I think that makes sense. >> >>>> I think rather than having several kinds of needs_work states, we >>>> should have a new field. Thus we could have "needs_work" with the >>>> "issues" field being documentation, doctests, rebasing, ... >>> That makes sense. However, then I think we're back to the >>> problem of >>> having to type in things and have no spelling errors in order to >>> pull up >>> a list in a report. Do you think it's worth the tradeoff? >> >> We make it a menu rather than an open field which would completely >> resolve this issue. >> >>> With different states, a report can just include all "needs_work" >>> state, >>> but easily separate them as well. >> >> I'm thinking the different kinds of "needs work" states may change, >> especially as we start using it. >> > > > Here is an updated workflow, deleting the "needs doc work" state > (we'll > make an "issues" custom field to tickets that lets someone > concisely say > what category of work is needed in the "needs work" state). > > The updated picture is here: > http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/jason/sage_workflow.png
Looks good to me. - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
