Review request: Nice-to-have bug process documentation proposal

[James Laska]

On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 12:32 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:58 -0400, John Poelstra wrote:
> > Adam Williamson said the following on 10/06/2010 01:32 PM Pacific Time:
> > > On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 12:58 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >> Hi, everyone. So we partly used the proposed new nice-to-have bug
> > >> tracking system during the F14 Beta process, and it seemed to go well.
> > >> In a quick burst of airport productivity, I've quickly written up a
> > >> bunch of proposed new wiki pages and modifications to existing ones to
> > >> document the nice-to-have process (and, incidentally, extend
> > >> documentation of the blocker process, since we don't seem to have much
> > >> of it beyond the blocker meeting SOP right now). All the pages can be
> > >> found here:
> > >>
> > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:NTH_adjustment_drafts
> > >
> > > Thanks to James for his feedback on this. I haven't had much feedback
> > > from anyone else. However, given that in practice everyone involved in
> > > the release review process has been happy using the NTH system drafted
> > > here so far, I intend to make the draft changes final (with
> > > modifications to reflect James' feedback) by the end of the week, so if
> > > you have any feedback you've been sitting on, now would be the perfect
> > > time to send it :) Thanks everyone!
> > 
> > Can you be more specific as to which page we are actually giving 
> > feedback on?  There are five of them there and they almost all look the 
> > same.
> 
> All of them. They're mostly modifications of existing pages. I'm not
> quite sure how you get that they look the same, they're very different.

General note ... There are a few broken links on this page.  I didn't
inspect *all* of them, but it looks like they will resolve once you've
moved the documents into their proposed locations.  So probably not a
big deal, I can understand the desire to not change the links before and
after moving the pages into their final location.

> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_desktop_results_nth_adjust is a proposed change to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Desktop_validation_results_template .

Good stuff.

> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_desktop_validation_nth_adjust is a proposed change to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Desktop_validation_testing .

Same as above, equally as wholesome :)

> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_meeting_nth_draft is a proposed change to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting .
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process_nth_draft is a proposed new page; it's not particularly specific to the nice-to-have proposal, actually, it just became apparent while I was doing this that we have no page which explains the entire blocker bug review process, and we should have one. This is it.

Funny how when you've been involved in a process for a while, you forget
which parts aren't clearly documented/described for others to engage.
Nice addition.

> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/QA:SOP_nth_process_nth_draft is a proposed new page which covers the whole nice-to-have review process much as the above proposed page covers the blocker review process.

My first reaction looking at the proposed blocker and nth process SOP
pages was that they should be combined into a single page, since there
is a lot of duplicate document structure/format.  But I can't think of
any good proposals to offer at the moment that make it better (not
worse).  It seems you've already been down this route too.

Perhaps a reflection on my visual learning habit, I've been playing
around with some minor edits of the 2 previous wiki pages that make it a
bit easier for me to rapidly locate/grok information without too much
reading.  Of course, let me know if the edits are too invasive or
detract from your intended message.

> I included a summary of the whole proposed NTH process in my initial
> review request mail. These are the wiki changes necessary to document
> that process.

Thanks,
James
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20101007/96f29bd2/attachment.bin