2002-06-04 23:56:04 -04:00
|
|
|
<html>
|
|
|
|
|
<head>
|
2002-06-05 00:01:10 -04:00
|
|
|
<title>SourceForge Tracker Usage</title>
|
2002-06-04 23:56:04 -04:00
|
|
|
<link rel="STYLESHEET" href="../style.css" type="text/css" />
|
|
|
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
|
<body marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
|
|
|
|
|
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
|
|
|
|
|
<tr>
|
|
|
|
|
<td class="corner"><a href="../"><img src="../expat.png"
|
|
|
|
|
border="0"/></a></td>
|
2002-06-05 00:01:10 -04:00
|
|
|
<td class="banner"><h2>SourceForge Tracker Usage</h2></td>
|
2002-06-04 23:56:04 -04:00
|
|
|
</tr>
|
|
|
|
|
<tr>
|
|
|
|
|
<td class="navbar">
|
|
|
|
|
</td>
|
|
|
|
|
<td class="content">
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002-06-05 00:01:10 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>This document describes the use of the SourceForge bug & patch
|
2002-06-13 16:41:24 -04:00
|
|
|
trackers by the Expat maintainers. These guidelines are substantially
|
|
|
|
|
based on the <a href="http://www.python.org/dev/devfaq.html#a1"
|
|
|
|
|
>guidelines used for Python</a>.</p>
|
2002-06-04 23:56:04 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2002-06-13 16:41:24 -04:00
|
|
|
<h3>Tracker Item Priority</h3>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>The priority field is simple enough; the higher the priority a
|
|
|
|
|
report is, the more important it is that the report needs to be
|
|
|
|
|
handled. Note that it is the priority of the report relative to other
|
|
|
|
|
reports; it does not mean action needs to be taken on the software;
|
|
|
|
|
it may be that a report takes a high priority because the bug it
|
|
|
|
|
describes is very damaging for someone. Review may, however,
|
|
|
|
|
determine that the bug is in someone else's code.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>So, how should priority be assigned? SourceForge assigns all new
|
|
|
|
|
reports a priority of "5", which is considered "normal". The follow
|
|
|
|
|
list shows the meanings of each priority level as used by the Expat
|
|
|
|
|
project.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
|
|
|
<li value="9"> Needs to be solved <em>immediately</em>. We
|
|
|
|
|
shouldn't need this since we're volunteers, but it's Ok to use this
|
|
|
|
|
if it's assigned to yourself and you have some external reason to
|
|
|
|
|
deal with it immediately. </li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li value="8"> Needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later, and
|
|
|
|
|
is before priority "7" reports. </li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li value="7"> Needs to be handled before release. No release can
|
|
|
|
|
be made so long as any report with priority "7" or higher is in any
|
|
|
|
|
of the trackers we use. </li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li value="6"> More important than most reports, but won't cause a
|
|
|
|
|
release to be held up. </li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li value="5"> Most reports. This is how reports are created by
|
|
|
|
|
default. </li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li value="4"> Reports with priority "4" and lower typically wait a
|
|
|
|
|
long time to be closed, or they're closed fairly quickly because
|
|
|
|
|
they're really easy to close. </li>
|
|
|
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h3>The Status and Resolution Fields</h3>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>In general, the Resolution and Status fields should be close to
|
|
|
|
|
self-explanatory, and the "Assigned to:" field should be the person
|
|
|
|
|
responsible for taking the next step in the patch process. Both
|
|
|
|
|
fields are expected to change value over the life of a patch; the
|
|
|
|
|
normal workflow is detailed below.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>When you've got the time and the ability, feel free to move any
|
|
|
|
|
patch that catches your eye along, whether or not it's been assigned
|
|
|
|
|
to you. And if you're assigned to a patch but aren't going to take
|
|
|
|
|
reasonably quick action (for whatever reason), please assign it to
|
|
|
|
|
someone else or unassign it ASAP: at those times you can't actively
|
|
|
|
|
help, actively get out of the way.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>If you're an expert in some area and know that a patch in that area
|
|
|
|
|
is both needed and non-controversial, just commit your changes
|
|
|
|
|
directly -- no need then to get the patch mechanism involved in
|
|
|
|
|
it.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>The actual patch status is given by the pair of fields called
|
|
|
|
|
"Status" and "Resolution":</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<table>
|
|
|
|
|
<thead>
|
|
|
|
|
<tr><th>Status</th>
|
|
|
|
|
<th>Resolution</th>
|
|
|
|
|
<th>Meaning</th></tr>
|
|
|
|
|
</thead>
|
|
|
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
|
|
|
<tr><td>Open</td>
|
|
|
|
|
<td>None</td>
|
|
|
|
|
<td>The initial state of all patches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>The patch is under consideration, but has not been
|
|
|
|
|
reviewed yet, or is under review but not yet Accepted or
|
|
|
|
|
Rejected.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>The Resolution will normally change to Accepted or
|
|
|
|
|
Rejected next.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>The person submitting the report should (if they have
|
|
|
|
|
permission) assign it to the person they most want to review
|
|
|
|
|
it, else the patch will be assigned based on the judgement
|
|
|
|
|
of the reviewer.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Discussion of major patches is carried out on the <a
|
2002-08-29 14:13:36 -04:00
|
|
|
href="http://mail.libexpat.org/mailman-21/listinfo/expat-discuss/"
|
2002-06-13 16:41:24 -04:00
|
|
|
>expat-discuss</a> mailing list. For simple patches, the
|
|
|
|
|
SourceForge comment mechanism should be sufficient.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>For the reviewer: If you're certain the patch should be
|
|
|
|
|
applied, change the Resolution to Accepted and assign it
|
|
|
|
|
back to the submitter for checkin if they are a developer on
|
|
|
|
|
the project (if they aren't, the reviewer should commit it
|
|
|
|
|
and change Resolution to Accepted and Status to Closed). If
|
|
|
|
|
you're certain the patch should never be
|
|
|
|
|
accepted, change the Resolution to Rejected, Status to
|
|
|
|
|
Closed, and write an explanation in the comment box. If you
|
|
|
|
|
have specific complaints that would cause you to change your
|
|
|
|
|
mind if addressed, explain them clearly in a comment, leave
|
|
|
|
|
the status Open, and reassign back to the submitter (again,
|
|
|
|
|
if they're a developer on the project). If you're
|
|
|
|
|
uncertain, leave the status Open, explain your uncertainies
|
|
|
|
|
in a comment, and reassign the patch to someone you believe
|
|
|
|
|
can address your remaining questions; or leave the status
|
|
|
|
|
Open and bring it up on <a
|
2002-08-29 14:13:36 -04:00
|
|
|
href="http://mail.libexpat.org/mailman-21/listinfo/expat-discuss/"
|
2002-06-13 16:41:24 -04:00
|
|
|
>expat-discuss</a>.</p></td></tr>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<tr><td>Open</td>
|
|
|
|
|
<td>Accepted</td>
|
|
|
|
|
<td>The patch has been accepted, but it hasn't been applied
|
|
|
|
|
yet.
|
|
|
|
|
<p>The Status will normally change to Closed next.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
<p>The person changing the Resolution to Accepted should, at the
|
|
|
|
|
same time, assign the patch to whoever they believe is most
|
2002-08-29 14:07:03 -04:00
|
|
|
likely to be able and willing to apply it (the submitter if
|
2002-06-13 16:41:24 -04:00
|
|
|
possible).</p></td></tr>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<tr><td>Closed</td>
|
|
|
|
|
<td>Accepted</td>
|
|
|
|
|
<td>The patch has been accepted and applied.
|
|
|
|
|
<p>The previous Resolution was Accepted or None (if the
|
|
|
|
|
reviewer checked it in).</p></td></tr>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<tr><td>Closed</td>
|
|
|
|
|
<td>Rejected</td>
|
|
|
|
|
<td>The patch has been reviewed and rejected.
|
|
|
|
|
<p>There are generally no transitions out of this state: the
|
2002-08-29 14:07:03 -04:00
|
|
|
patch is dead.</p></td></tr>
|
2002-06-13 16:41:24 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<tr><td>Open</td>
|
|
|
|
|
<td>Out of date</td>
|
|
|
|
|
<td>Previous Resolution was Accepted or Postponed, but the patch
|
|
|
|
|
no longer works.
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Please enter a comment when changing the Resolution to "Out
|
|
|
|
|
of date", to record the nature of the problem and the previous
|
|
|
|
|
state.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Also assign it back to the submitter, as they need to upload
|
|
|
|
|
a new version.</p></td></tr>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<tr><td>Open</td>
|
|
|
|
|
<td>Postponed</td>
|
|
|
|
|
<td>The previous Resolution was None or Accepted, but for some
|
|
|
|
|
reason (e.g., pending release) the patch should not be reviewed
|
|
|
|
|
or applied until further notice.
|
|
|
|
|
<p>The Resolution will normally change to None or Accepted next,
|
|
|
|
|
which should be done as soon after the relevant event (release,
|
|
|
|
|
etc.) as possible. Checking for Postponed reports should be
|
|
|
|
|
part of the release process.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Please enter a comment when changing the Resolution to
|
|
|
|
|
Postponed, to record the reason, the previous Resolution, and
|
|
|
|
|
the conditions under which the patch should revert to Resolution
|
|
|
|
|
None or Accepted.</p></td></tr>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<tr><td>Deleted</td>
|
|
|
|
|
<td>Any</td>
|
|
|
|
|
<td>Bit bucket.
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Use only if it's OK for the patch and its SourceForge history
|
|
|
|
|
to disappear. As of 13-June-2002, SourceForge does not actually
|
|
|
|
|
throw away Deleted patches, but that may change.</p></td></tr>
|
|
|
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
|
|
|
</table>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h3>SourceForge Tracker Quirks</h3>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>The SourceForge trackers, though quite nice to work with for
|
|
|
|
|
moderate sized projects, do have some quirks and limitations. Most of
|
|
|
|
|
the funcional limitations are unlikely to affect small projects like
|
|
|
|
|
Expat, but the quirky behavior... well, we should be aware of it.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<dl>
|
|
|
|
|
<dt> <strong>Who is "Nobody"?</strong> </dt>
|
|
|
|
|
<dd> That depends on who initially submitted the report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>The most important thing to know is that SourceForge asks
|
|
|
|
|
reporters who are not logged in to provide an email address,
|
|
|
|
|
but does not require it. There is no way to determine whether
|
|
|
|
|
"Nobody" provided one.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>There are at least two common instances of "Nobody". The
|
|
|
|
|
simple interpretation of "Nobody" (and probably the most common
|
|
|
|
|
case) is that the reporter did not log into SourceForge and did
|
|
|
|
|
not provide an email address. Sometimes a name or email
|
|
|
|
|
address will be included in the initial report or a followup;
|
|
|
|
|
it is not always the reporters intention to remain anonymous.
|
|
|
|
|
If an email address is available this way, it is a good idea to
|
|
|
|
|
send an email to the provided address when following up to a
|
|
|
|
|
report, allowing the reporter to learn of the response and
|
|
|
|
|
provide additional feedback or information.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>The second common case is that the report was filed by
|
|
|
|
|
someone without a SourceForge login or who wanted to remain
|
|
|
|
|
anonymous for some reason, but provided an email address to
|
|
|
|
|
SourceForge so that they would be automatically notified of any
|
|
|
|
|
followup activity. In this case, requests for additional
|
|
|
|
|
information in followup comments can actually get results,
|
|
|
|
|
sometimes including an email address if the anonymous filing
|
|
|
|
|
was not designed to protect anonymity but simply to avoid going
|
|
|
|
|
through the SourceForge login screen.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
|
|
|
<em>
|
|
|
|
|
It's good to know that when filing a report while not logged
|
|
|
|
|
in, clicking on the "Please log in!" link beneath the large
|
|
|
|
|
text box will take you to a login page that will return you
|
|
|
|
|
to your submission form. Contents of the submission form
|
|
|
|
|
will be lost, unfortunately, but that link can save a bit of
|
|
|
|
|
navigating if you remember it soon enough.
|
|
|
|
|
</em>
|
|
|
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>SourceForge also provides a feature allowing authenticated
|
|
|
|
|
users to "monitor" a tracker report. Clicking on the "Monitor"
|
|
|
|
|
button will cause SourceForge to send the user an email on each
|
|
|
|
|
change to the report in much the way it sends an email to the
|
|
|
|
|
current assignee or the address configured in the tracker admin
|
|
|
|
|
for new or modified items. (For Expat, this would be the <a
|
2002-08-29 14:13:36 -04:00
|
|
|
href="http://mail.libexpat.org/mailman-21/listinfo/expat-bugs/"
|
2002-06-13 16:41:24 -04:00
|
|
|
>expat-bugs</a> list.) Users who are monitoring a report are
|
|
|
|
|
often knowledgable enough to answer questions about whatever the
|
|
|
|
|
problem is.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>So, the "Nobody" listed as the submitter doesn't tell us
|
|
|
|
|
much, except that we might not get to know who the submitter
|
|
|
|
|
is.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</dd>
|
|
|
|
|
</dl>
|
2002-06-04 23:56:04 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</td>
|
|
|
|
|
</tr>
|
|
|
|
|
<tr>
|
|
|
|
|
<td class="corner">
|
|
|
|
|
<a href="http://sourceforge.net/">
|
|
|
|
|
<img src="http://cvs.sourceforge.net/sourceforge_whitebg.gif"
|
|
|
|
|
width="136" height="79" border="0" alt="SourceForge
|
|
|
|
|
Logo" />
|
|
|
|
|
</a>
|
|
|
|
|
</td>
|
|
|
|
|
</tr>
|
|
|
|
|
</table>
|
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
|
</html>
|
