Re: [boost] Second call: The Boost Bug Sprint is coming!!

Subject: Re: [boost] Second call: The Boost Bug Sprint is coming!!
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-30 13:30:57

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Caisse" <boost_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Second call: The Boost Bug Sprint is coming!!

> 
> Marshall Clow wrote:
>> The boost bug sprint is coming! It starts _this_ Friday, May 28th, and 
>> runs through Sunday June 7th.
>>
> Some procedural questions. I don't see a wiki page that describes the
> preferred ticket workflow. The TicketWorkflow page most discusses migration
> issues from SF.
> 
> Should the ticket Type be changed to Patch if there is a patch and test
> case attached?

I was asking myself the same question. This will help the maintainer to concentrate to the tickes possiblily having a solution, but the ML can be used also to request this to the maintainer. The problem is that we loss the information if it is a bug or a feature request. IMO the fact the ticket have a oatch and a test case that prove the issue is orthogonal, and should be stated using specific attributes. If any one knows how to add attributes to the TRAC system this will be very useful.
 
> Should tickets that are requiring some amount of work be "assigned" to
> the individual working on the ticket as an indicator to others that someone
> is already working the issue?

This could help to organize this Bug Sprint, but once the patch and the test have been provided the ticket should be assigned to the maintainer, as he/she is the one that can decide to integrate or not the patch.
 
> Should the ML be used to request patch testing for additional platforms that
> patch creator does not have access to?

I think so. I have already do that.
 
Regards,
Vicente