[WG: Sakai QA] [cle-release-team] Question about Jira workflow

[Aaron Zeckoski]

I don't think they are, but we can copy in the QA list on this reply:

Neal,
I switched over the core projects and ones controlled by the CLE team
(or me) to use the new workflow. Other projects are welcome to use it
as well but I did not force it on any of them.

I think the new workflow is better personally but I think it is up to
the individual project teams to make that decision. I suggest you
touch base with them and find out which ones are willing to switch
over.
:-)
-AZ


On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Neal Caidin
<nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org> wrote:
> I just realized that I'm making an assumption that everyone on the CLE
> Release team is in the Jira QA group? Otherwise, I don't think you would see
> the difference between the workflows.
>
> Thanks,
> Neal
>
> On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Neal Caidin <nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hi CLE Release team,
>
> I was going through the Blocker/Critical tickets which need QA -
> https://jira.sakaiproject.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?mode=hide&requestId=13399
>
> and I noticed that some of the tickets have the option for indicating the
> issue was Tested, Close with Testing or Start QA (what I would expect).
> Other issues only had the option to Close or Reopen the issue. RES issues
> had the option to Close, Tested, or Re-Open.
>
> My hypothesis is that the QA workflow is not the same for all projects?  I
> looked at
> https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/MGT/Sakai+Jira+Guidelines , but
> nothing like that is mentioned.
>
> Based on looking at samples of tickets, it seems to me that SAK, KNL, SAM,
> STAT, and POLL use the same workflow (expected workflow) but that MSGCNTR,
> MSND, LSNBLDR, SHORTULR, SRCH, BLTI, and PRFL use a different workflow. And
> RES may be using it's own. A couple of example tickets below. KNL behaves as
> I expect, but not MSGCNTR.
>
>
> MSGCNTR-683
>
>
> KNL-955
>
> This is important because at a minimum I need to make sure the QA process
> and documentation are reflecting reality, and also because we might want to
> consider rationalizing the processes at some point in the future.
>
> Is my hypothesis correct? If not, why am I seeing the discrepancy in
> behavior?
>
> This came up because I was working with a new QA tester this morning to get
> him started and the first issue he picked to work on was for PRFL and it
> doesn't have a Start QA button.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Neal Caidin
>
> Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
> nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org
> Skype: nealkdin
> AIM: ncaidin at aol.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cle-release-team mailing list
> cle-release-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cle-release-team
>



-- 
Aaron Zeckoski - Software Architect - http://tinyurl.com/azprofile