Re: EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

Mathias Bauer wrote:
> Hi,
> 

Hi,

> the "right solution" would be to remove the check. A target milestone is 
> a hint when a particular should be fixed or is planned to be fixed. The 
> same is true for a CWS. If a developers decided to fix an issue earlier 
> or finish a CWS earlier, why should that be marked as "failed"?

Because the data of the issue doesn´t match the data of the CWS and we 
have an inconsistent state in the tools that document what we are doing.

Where is the point of not wanting to also change the issue data if the 
decision when to fix the issue did change. Why do you want to refuse to 
document that by changing the issue data.

The "failed" status in this case is just a "hint" to the developer that 
there are issues on his CWS which either need to be fixed on another CWS 
which is based on another codeline or which need to be adjusted to be 
fixed on another target which might eventually also need an agreement 
about that with other stakeholders involved.

> That's 
> exactly what Stephan said: bureaucratic humbug.
> 

Well I know we do have some members in an 
implement_as_you_want_when_you_want_and_dont_care_about_qa-needs_roadmaps_or_documentation 
camp but I didn´t really expect you two to be in there ;-)

The need to provide information and status flags in EIS and issues is 
just there to reflect what actually currently is being done and what has 
been done in the past for others and for processes besides the pure 
coding in development that need to be organized for creating a product.

> The check for "all tasks fixed" is another story. It makes sense to 
> check that before a CWS is waiting for QA approval.
> 

Well just because the CWS is flagged red while it is in development that 
is not a bad thing and it doesn´t mean the test has to be postponed to 
the very last momment just when the developer wants to change it´s state 
to "ready for qa".

In fact that´s a quite common thing in programming to write the testcase 
first and than let it fail until the changes in the implementation fix 
the issue.

Regards,
Bernd

> Regards,
> Mathias
> 
> On 21.06.2010 12:00, Bernd Eilers wrote:
>>
>> Hi there!
>>
>> I think the real root cause is that the definitions of what can be done
>> on which codeline is currently often not done early enough. As soon as a
>> new target is being created for the bugtracking system the corresponding
>> rules should be configured in EIS also. If that would be the case we
>> wouldn´t have any annoyance either. If that doesn´t work somebody just
>> has to complain to the group of people which have been assigned to do
>> these administrative tasks and that is "program management".
>>
>> Doing such test only when the cws is being set to "ready for QA" just
>> because some developers don´t like to see the color red is IMHO not the
>> right solution. On the contrary I would argue that maybe even setting
>> the CWS to "ready for QA" shouldn´t be allowed at all if there are tasks
>> with the wrong target.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Bernd Eilers
>>
>>
>> Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> ACK.
>>>
>>> If we think that we need that bullshit, the status should at least not
>>> be set to "failed" before the CWS is ready for QA. That still would be
>>> bureaucratic humbug (because both fields are that per se), but at
>>> least some humbug that is less annoying.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mathias
>>>
>>> On 18.06.2010 12:06, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>>>> What a heap of bureaucratic humbug.
>>>>
>>>> -Stephan
>>>>
>>>> On 06/18/10 11:43, Bernd Eilers wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Stephan!
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no "error" in EIS, EIS behaves just as it was instructed to
>>>>> do.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you click on the "Details" link you will find the following
>>>>> information:
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The release of this ChildWorkspace is OOo 3.4 . The release of the CWS
>>>>> is invalid.
>>>>>
>>>>> The allowed Releases for the MasterWorkspace of this CWS are: OOo 3.1
>>>>> , OOo 3.2 , OOo 3.1.1 , OOo 3.3 , OOo 3.2.1
>>>>>
>>>>> The List of allowed Releases for MasterWorkspaces is being maintained
>>>>> by program management.
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This all basically means that if you think OOo 3.4 should be in the
>>>>> list for that MasterWorkspace but isn´t ask your friendly program
>>>>> manager next door to add it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Bernd Eilers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>>>>>> For a CWS based on DEV300 with release set to OOo 3.4 and all
>>>>>> associated tasks having target OOo 3.4, AllowedRelease and
>>>>>> AllowedTaskTargets erroneously are both set to failed (e.g., see
>>>>>> <http://eis.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/cws.ShowCWS?Id=9434&OpenOnly=false&Section=All>). 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Stephan
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
> 
>