From: João Abecasis (jpabecasis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-17 15:36:28
Douglas Gregor wrote:
> João Abecasis wrote:
>> * Ticket Type: we could use one or two more ticket types: (Library)
>> Review Requests and a Review Manager Application. Perhaps a single
>> generic "Review Request" would work just as well, to begin with.
> Let's just have one ticket type. I suggest calling it "Library
> Submission", because that seems to cover the whole process.
Sure. "Library submission" looks good to me. Better than my "Review
>> * Reporter: The person submitting the review request or RM application
>> * Status: Assigned would be used when a Review Manager has been
>> assigned. He is responsible for "closing" the review ticket.
> Sounds good. Actually, we might want to take this one step further: once
> a review manager is assigned, the ticket is passed to that person. When
> the formal review is completed (and assuming the library is accepted),
> the review manager could bounce the ticket back to the author. The
> ticket is closed, and milestone assigned, when the library is integrated
> in CVS/Subversion (and we therefore know the version in which the
> library will appear). That means one will be able to easily tell which
> version of Boost a library will appear in, just from the ticket system.
Agree. I think being able to easily figure out where a
candidate or accepted library currently stands is something we've been
missing. And the "Formal Review Schedule" page doesn't really cut it
because it must be maintained by hand and will lag behind, at times.
>> * Owner: per above, this would be the Review Manager for a library
>> submission and the Review Wizard for other types of requests.
> Ah, okay. So initially,. the review wizard would own the ticket, then
> pass it to the review manager, then finally to the library author before
> it's closed?
Yes, that's the idea. Actually, passing the ball to the library author
is your suggestion. But it seems logical to be that way.
>> * Milestone: Perhaps a bit far-fetched, but this could be used to follow
>> the library library submission process
>> (http://boost.org/more/submission_process.htm). This allows one to check
>> at a glance libraries in each stage. It could also clutter the Roadmap
>> page. None of these Milestone Steps would advance: tickets would
>> progress from one to another.
> Let's not do this. Milestones should be reserved for Boost and tool
Ok. I wasn't really comfortable with this one either. Anyway,
I think we could put the status in a keyword: review requested, review
scheduled, undergoing review, accepted, merged to trunk... or something
along those lines.
> Anyway, we can easily create custom reports that would only look for
> library submissions, grouping them by milestone (which automagically
> shows which Boost release a library will appear in). Creating new
> reports in Trac is as simple as adding a new SQL query to
>> * Version: Version of Boost with which the library was tested? Version
>> for inclusion after acceptance?
> "Milestone" seems a better match for this, but either one will do.
>> * Component: "Boost Process"
>> And if you've got this far... Do you think this is a good idea in
>> general? Do you think something like this adds more "process" with
>> no or little gain? Is it any friendlier to potential submitters? How
>> about potential review managers? ...
> I think this is a good idea. It gives us a better "paper" trail to see
> where each submission is, and can help automate some of the tasks that
> the review wizards and review managers are already doing.
> Here's my suggestion: write up a page on the Trac describing how to use
> the ticket system to track the library submission process (which will
> probably just be called LibrarySubmissionProcess). Write it as if this
> were *the* submission process documentation, integrating all of the
> material from http://boost.org/more/submission_process.htm along with
> the instructions/links to the right places in the Trac system.
I'll look into this.
> If you like the names "Boost Process" (for the component) and "Library
> Submission" (for the ticket type), then drop me a line and I'll add
> those to the Trac.
I'm happy with "Library Submission", not entirely with "Boost Process".
Anyway, while we're assuming a single component for the new ticket type,
we may as well use None. Unless, of course, we want to merge different
types of tickets in a single report... Let me think some more of this.
I'll start by formalizing the process on the wiki integrating the ideas
discussed here and we'll go from there.
> I've enabled the ability to create and modify reports on the Trac
> (assuming you already have access to the Subversion repository; if not,
> see http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/BoostSubversion). I would
> suggest that you take some of the entries on
> http://boost.org/more/formal_review_schedule.html and create tickets for
> them retroactively (even for older, accepted libraries). Then, you could
> add a Trac report that shows the status of all of the library submissions.
I'm a bit uneasy about retroactively creating tickets for older
requests/accepted libraries. It looks a bit like rewriting history...
Anyway, I'll start integrating the Submission Process and Review
Schedule in the Wiki and we'll see how that works. I may need to get
some tickets in for testing, so perhaps there's no running from it...
> I like your idea to use the Trac ticket system to keep track of reviews.
> I'm also interested in migrating developer-centric content from the web
> site over to the Trac, where it can be more easily maintained, and in
> replacing hand-maintained web pages (like the formal review schedule)
> with auto-generated reports, where possible. In the end, however, Tom
> Brinkman and Ron Garcia manage the formal reviews, and these tools are
> meant to make their jobs easier along with helping others better
> understand the process.
Agreed. Once I start the pages I'll be sure to explicitly mention that
this is not yet the approved submission process, but still a work in
progress. All the ideas I posted were meant to get the discussion
started so I'm not attached to them in any way. While we're defining
this, all can be changed. In the end, I'd like the process itself to be
as streamlined as possible for everyone involved. We're all here for the
code... ehm... and the docs, of course ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk