Improving Bug States and Workflows
Followup on https:/
Blueprint information
- Status:
- Started
- Approver:
- Kate Stewart
- Priority:
- High
- Drafter:
- Ursula Junque
- Direction:
- Approved
- Assignee:
- None
- Definition:
- Discussion
- Series goal:
- Accepted for precise
- Implementation:
- Started
- Milestone target:
- precise-alpha-2
- Started by
- Kate Stewart
- Completed by
Whiteboard
Notes:
- A survey was created and an e-mail was sent to ubuntu-devel to find out how people feel about using Launchpad. (44 responses - ~1/4 of Ubuntu Developers) (Note: There are > 2500 subscribers to the ubuntu-devel mailing list). Some results are:
- People feel they do more manual work than should.
- Not possible to look at bugs, but better tools could be make it possible to look at them
- Opinion status is not used
- Opinion status going away is an open task on Launchpad and is something they want to do
- People are using tags in way that could be considered as bug state for workflows.
- Kernel team would like custom per project status.
Ideas:
- In order to work with upstreams better need to have 1:1 mappings with bugzilla states.
- Definition of the statuses - https:/
- Definition of how LP translates external statuses to LP statuses: https:/
- "Incomplete" is sometimes used for fixes that need testing, and then expires when it shouldn't.
- Expiration can be blocked in a variety of ways, for example by having an assignee
- Consider renaming "Triaged" to "Ready" (or "Ready to Fix")
- Possible removal of states (Opinion, first of them)
- Gentle social pressure towards standardization, by making definitions visibile in the Launchpad web interface.
- What do bug statuses mean to each Ubuntu development team? For example, QA subloop - fix committed, activate QA states, verification, set to fixed released. It varies.
- Diagram the ideal workflow for each team and how they map it to current representations in Launchpad. Look for the mismatches between the two.
- Proposal that each of the teams to check against.
- Interesting cases to consider:
- SRU flow.
- Kernel config.
Work Items:
[ursinha] Find and publish notes of the DAs discussion on which parts of the bug workflow are common to all engineering teams: DONE
[ursinha] Create a convention for documenting state diagram for teams workflow currently (similar to this: https:/
[ursinha] document server team workflow: DONE
[ursinha] Ask people who work with ubuntu-
[brian-murray] document foundations team workflow: DONE
[ursinha] work with pvillavi to document desktop team workflow: DONE
[jsalisbury] document kernel team workflow: DONE
[bryce] document X-Team workflow: DONE
[cgregan] document CE team workflow: DONE
[ursinha] document SRU bug workflow: DONE
[kate.stewart] Organize followup meeting half-way through the cycle to review the differences between teams.: DONE
[ursinha] First draft unified workflow. This workflow should look at bug assignment as a part of it as people seem to use assignment differently: DONE
[kate.stewart] Discuss in the next Thunderdome/Rally with Launchpad about the common workflow we have so far and figure out improvements: POSTPONED
[flacoste] Will discuss how to implement the user needs from the proposed common workflow.: POSTPONED
Work Items
Dependency tree
* Blueprints in grey have been implemented.