Difference between revisions of "Talk:BugSquad/Triage Guide"
(Created page with '== Notes from the 0.88 triage effort == We began by looking at all of the open tickets for 0.88. We allocated them in groups of 20 to the people who showed up for the Triage Day…') |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
We began by looking at all of the open tickets for 0.88. We allocated them in groups of 20 to the people who showed up for the Triage Day session in #sugar-meeting. There was some confusion about goals, but we agreed to the narrow goal of just making sure the tickets were well specified as per the instructions in the guide and to move "enhancements" to 0.90 unless there was some compelling reason to keep the ticket open for 0.88 (e.g., a pressing need and a champion to do the work). It was helpful that the Release Team was well represented as we had numerous questions along the way. | We began by looking at all of the open tickets for 0.88. We allocated them in groups of 20 to the people who showed up for the Triage Day session in #sugar-meeting. There was some confusion about goals, but we agreed to the narrow goal of just making sure the tickets were well specified as per the instructions in the guide and to move "enhancements" to 0.90 unless there was some compelling reason to keep the ticket open for 0.88 (e.g., a pressing need and a champion to do the work). It was helpful that the Release Team was well represented as we had numerous questions along the way. | ||
| − | Next time, it may make sense to process the enhancements first, so as to get the queue down to a manageable size more quickly. (It is easy to get overwhelmed by so many tickets. Also, since Fructose and Honey are not part of the 0.88 release process, we should probably have restricted ourselves to Sucrose components only. (Is there an easy way to do this in Trac?) | + | Next time, ''it may make sense to process the enhancements first'', so as to get the queue down to a manageable size more quickly. (It is easy to get overwhelmed by so many tickets. Also, since Fructose and Honey are not part of the 0.88 release process, we should probably have restricted ourselves to Sucrose components only. (Is there an easy way to do this in Trac?) |
The team in .py is looking at the open tickets for 0.86 and next, we can try to tackle the open tickets that have no milestone specified. | The team in .py is looking at the open tickets for 0.86 and next, we can try to tackle the open tickets that have no milestone specified. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Some 'enhancements' were left in the 0.88 queue after discussion. ''It would be helpful to make a note in the ticket as to why it was kept in the 0.88 queue.'' | ||
| + | |||
--[[User:Walter|Walter]] 15:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC) | --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 15:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:01, 3 March 2010
Notes from the 0.88 triage effort
We began by looking at all of the open tickets for 0.88. We allocated them in groups of 20 to the people who showed up for the Triage Day session in #sugar-meeting. There was some confusion about goals, but we agreed to the narrow goal of just making sure the tickets were well specified as per the instructions in the guide and to move "enhancements" to 0.90 unless there was some compelling reason to keep the ticket open for 0.88 (e.g., a pressing need and a champion to do the work). It was helpful that the Release Team was well represented as we had numerous questions along the way.
Next time, it may make sense to process the enhancements first, so as to get the queue down to a manageable size more quickly. (It is easy to get overwhelmed by so many tickets. Also, since Fructose and Honey are not part of the 0.88 release process, we should probably have restricted ourselves to Sucrose components only. (Is there an easy way to do this in Trac?)
The team in .py is looking at the open tickets for 0.86 and next, we can try to tackle the open tickets that have no milestone specified.
Some 'enhancements' were left in the 0.88 queue after discussion. It would be helpful to make a note in the ticket as to why it was kept in the 0.88 queue.
--Walter 15:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)