Re: QA group best practice?
* Matthew Palmer (mpalmer@debian.org) [030726 11:50]:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 10:42:38AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>>>> * Make sure you keep the comments in the BTS up to date. If you're working
>>>> on a fix, say so. If you've got an upload in the pipeline, tag the bug
>>>> pending. This minimises duplicated effort, and keeps a record of work done
>>>> (as such, I think it's better than coordinating on -qa@l.d.o, which was my
>>>> other possible suggestion).
>>> If you just begin working on a patch I would prefer "confirmed".
>>> I would use "pending" only for problems that are fixed but not uploaded.
>> IMHO it should be able to mark a package as "it is currently being
>> updated by one member of the QA-group". But this could perhaps be done
>> by mail to qa, whereas tackling single bugs is better done via marking
>> bugs as confirmed, pending or by mail to the bug log entry.
> I'd say that "working on it" should be an e-mail to the bug. "Fixed,
> preparing[1] an upload" should be tagged pending, and the bug gets closed on
> successful upload.
That's also ok. But - there are situations where I tackle "a whole
package", and it's better to write something here instead. So, always
keep up-to-date with reading qa while taggling qa-bugs (and the other
way round of course also, read the bug log entries before declaring to
work on a whole package). And it's of course never wrong to speak to
each other in private mail if status seems unclear or if there may be
misunderstandings.
> Of course, if I've overstepped there, someone can tell me to stop being so
> damned arrogant. <g>
Same for me. Well, Frank and I are even not DDs, so we're both in a
formally much worse position than you are.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Reply to: