[OpenWalnut-Dev] Permanent tickets

[Sebastian Eichelbaum]

I am not fully convinced with this idea. It is too strict. We simply cannot provide tickets for everything. And it is also not reasonable to create a ticket for your small change, commit with this ticket number, and 10 seconds later: close the ticket again. To make a compromise, I introduced some über-tickets, which cover the major goals of our project. We need to keep the number of über-tickets small, so that everyone in our group can remember them easily (even me, who is not able to remember its own birthday ;-)). The cool thing is, Redmine supports this kind of tickets. With Redmine, we can directly associate tickets to one of the über-tickets (Parent-ticket feature). This allows the project manager and release manager to have a fast overview on the project status by using these über-tickets. We should also be aware, that not every ticket can be assigned to one of the über-tickets since they cover a different thing. 

To conclude this

* we will not introduce place-holder tickets for everything
** it is not feasible
* we will use _some_ über-tickets which represent some MAJOR topics
** we will keep the number of über-tickets small (everyone should know about these 5 or something tickets)
** we should cover the following über-ticket-topics (since they are important for the project):
*** Portability
*** Doc and Style (#42)
*** Module stability (including module deletion crash stuff)
*** Module features (this is especially useful for user feature requests)
*** Framework stability
*** Framework improvement (including features, optimizations and so on)
*** Infrastructure
* we assign our standard tickets to über-tickets IFF reasonable
* we use über-ticket numbers for commits IFF no direct ticket exists AND the commit matches the über-ticket's topic
* we accept the fact that not every commit can be categorized into these über-tickets

I will create these tickets now and assign our existing tickets to them.

Bye
Sebastian

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Alexander Wiebel wrote:

> Hi Mathias
> 
> > So ATM there are three tickets #42, #77 and #78. I though one permanent
> > ticket (#42) would not pollute too much the ticket system and could
> > serve our purpose to have tickets for often occuring small work pieces.
> > Addionally it is very easy to remember, since its the answer to a very
> > important question.
> 
> OK, the 42 is perfect :-)
> 
> > However, what is the purpose of having two separate tickets #77 and #78
> > for DOC and STYLE, since the ticket descr. does not say anything more
> > than the tags "DOC" or "STYLE"?
> 
> Yes you are right. I missed your ticket. I will merge the other two into it.
> 
> > Further, I observed that other small work may occur which should have an
> > extra commit, but its not that important to write a ticket first: Fixing
> > failing unittest in about 17min.
> 
> 
> If I follow your argumentation from some years ago, you will have to
> create a ticket for each such small task. 17 minutes seems not too
> short. However, I agree that it can become cumbersome if filing the
> ticket takes longer than fixing the bug. I do not have a solution for
> this yet. However, I think it is a bad idea to create a permanent ticket
> for this because the small tasks can have very different topics.
> 
> > I don't want to mess up the ticket system with permanent tickets, since
> > it reduces the overview of the work which has to be done.
> 
> Definitely.
> 
> Cheers,
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> OpenWalnut-Dev mailing list
> OpenWalnut-Dev at lists.informatik.uni-leipzig.de
> http://lists.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/mailman/listinfo/openwalnut-dev
> 

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. Sebastian Eichelbaum
Universität Leipzig
Institut für Informatik
Abteilung Bild- und Signalverarbeitung
PF 100920
D-04009 Leipzig