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

[Neal Caidin]

Okay. I guess for the non-core projects, we would just put our QA status in the comments, or Reopen the ticket if it fails.  Does that sound about right?

Thanks,
Neal


On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Aaron Zeckoski <azeckoski at unicon.net> wrote:

> 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