I'm for a +1 on this one . This would allow to introduce testers in our process. I understand this is difficult for the platform but this would be easier for the products. Maybe we can leave the decision on the project head for each of our projects. Ludovic Vincent Massol wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
I don't like it.
The developer is reponsible for testing what he commits. Period. Anything that implies otherwise should be banned IMO.
Just to qualify my answer a bit ;)
It can work but only when there's a very rigid process with one person working full time to manage it. Unfortunately we don't have that person yet. Maybe in the future we'll be able to get someone to do functional tests for us. When this happens we could possibly add a new state for whether the issue has been validated by an external tester or not. But even when that happens every developer still needs to ensure that: 1) he's fully tested it (with automated tests as much as possible) 2) written documentation for it
-Vincent
On Dec 5, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
No replies yet...
On Oct 11, 2007 5:33 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu.dumitriu@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
We should reintroduce the Resolved state in the issue workflow, and it should work like this:
- When closing an issue, it will go in the Resolved state, which means that somebody provided a fix and it is committed in the repository. - Somebody else can test (manually) that the issue is indeed fixed/implemented, and it works as expected. If no, then it goes back to Open, otherwise it goes to Verified. - When all the needed tests and documentation are written, the issue can be closed completely, entering the Closed state.
This should improve the way we write code, meaning that we don't just commit some quick fix code which nobody sees, and claim that the issue is fixed. Right now we're trying to do peer reviewing either by first attaching patches to the issue and have somebody review it, or by hoping that someone is reading the commit mails and notices if something is wrong. We should never make a release that has issues in the Resolved state, as it has unverified code, probably with missing documentation and proper tests. We should reserve a few days before each release for moving any Resolved issue to the Closed state, by verifying, testing and documenting it.
Verifying issues can be done by outsiders, too, so we could involve the community more. Perhaps it would be a good idea to require two verifiers before moving the issue to verified, as testing on different systems can spot some bugs, like the full screen editor not working in Safari issue.
Sergiu -- http://purl.org/net/sergiu
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Ludovic Dubost Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost