Good point. It’s too darn much work right
now to update the content separately before reviewing it. Maybe we should
pretend like I never made the comment about the Closed state…
- Jim
____________________
Jim Ruehlin, IBM
Rational
RUP Content
Developer
Eclipse Process
Framework (EPF) Committer
email:
jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx
phone:
760.505.3232
fax:
949.369.0720
From:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:37
AM
To: Eclipse Process Framework
Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [epf-dev] Validating
Method Content
My only comment on this is that we may have things
committed to CVS even before the Bugzilla entry is marked as closed. That
happens today.
If
we tie these two (closing Bugzilla and committing to CVS are dependent on each
other), that means all contribution should be attached to Bugzilla entry first
(as doc or other format), then go through all the review process (whatever the
process we adopt), then finally committed to CVS.
Does
that affect our ability to make things quickly available to a large audience or
even the ability to 'test' content and navigability directly into the tool or
published web site?
Ricardo Balduino
Senior Software Engineer
IBM - RUP Team | EPF Committer
www.ibm.com/rational
www.eclipse.org/epf
Jim Ruehlin/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS
Sent
by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
07/10/2006 11:05 AM
Please
respond to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
To
|
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
|
cc
|
csibbald@xxxxxxxx
|
Subject
|
RE: [epf-dev] Validating Method Content
|
|
Hi Chris,
Verification is problematic for us. In my example I’m
taking for granted that Verified is equivalent to a unit test. The content
correctly describes what it should. This should be tempered with the notion
that the content shouldn’t just be pie-in-the-sky ideas, but things that
have been found to work in the real world. One informal review and a formal review
with 2 others seems like it would be sufficient, but others may think
differently. Perhaps there’s just some controversial content that needs a
wider review before it’s verified. Either way, I think review boards are
a good idea. It would be more efficient than trying to find some reviewers
every time you write content.
We also need the equivalent of an integration test. I think
this would be the broader review you mentioned. The content/structure needs to
be checked for consistency, e.g. content in different method elements
don’t contradict each other. But I think this is outside the context of
fixing a single Bugzilla entry.
Perhaps “closed” should reflect that the content
has been added to the main branch of CVS. This may be equivalent to Verified at
the moment. But if we change our CM structure in the future to have an
integration workstream, it might be handy to use Closed for that. Just an idea.
- Jim
____________________
Jim Ruehlin, IBM Rational
RUP Content Developer
Eclipse Process Framework (EPF)
Committer
email: jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: 760.505.3232
fax: 949.369.0720
From:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of "Chris Sibbald"
<Chris.Sibbald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 10:45 AM
To: "Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List"
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: External Chris Sibbald <csibbald@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [epf-dev] Validating Method Content
Thanks Jim.
This looks like a reasonable process. In fact, it is
pretty much the process I have been following for the RM and CM content.
The only question I have is the last step(s) for moving the
bug to "Verified". I wonder if two reviewers is sufficient to
provide enough viewpoints/perspectives, or if a broader review is needed?
Perhaps we should establish review boards for each
discipline/package to perform the final validation?
When would the bug be "closed"?
Cheers,
Chris
From:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ricardo Balduino
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 2:16 PM
To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Validating Method Content
Thanks Jim for proposing that. It actually addresses the "time for
review" I mentioned in the other email (before I saw this one:-))
Now, it's a question of who plays each role (author, reviewer 1, reviewer 2).
Cheers,
Ricardo Balduino
Senior Software Engineer
IBM - RUP Team | EPF Committer
www.ibm.com/rational
www.eclipse.org/epf
Jim Ruehlin/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
07/07/2006 09:34 AM
Please
respond to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
To
|
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
[epf-dev] Validaitng Method Content
|
|
Hello all,
The question of what “done” means in terms of method content has
come up as we’ve been reviewing content this week. In other words, when
can a Bugzilla entry be changed from Accepted (or Assigned) to Resolved, and
then to Verified.
I propose the following:
- A Bugzilla entry is Assigned to a content developer, who changes the state to
Accepted.
- The content developer writes content that is
complete and understandable, following the plug-in authoring guidelines.
- The content is committed and one person is
recruited to informally review the content.
- The reviewer checks for obvious errors, glaring
omissions, and violations of the authoring guidelines. The reviewer
reports the findings via email or comments on the appropriate Bugzilla
entry.
- The content developer makes
corrections/improvements and commits
the changes. The Bugzilla entry is changed to Resolved.
- A formal review takes place with the content
developer and two others (one of which could be the original reviewer).
This is done via the phone.
- The three parties can accept the content as-is,
accept the content pending changes identified in the formal review, or
reject the content. If rejected, the Bugzilla entry is changed back to Assigned or Accepted with comments as to why it was rejected.
- If accepted pending changes, the content author
makes the changes and commits
them without further review.
- The Bugzilla entry is changed to Verified after the content as been
accepted (and committed if necessary).
We should also have some kind of acceptance test where all content is reviewed
for spelling errors, consistency, globalization considerations, etc.
What do people thing? Would this be more effective than what we have now, or
can this plan be made better?
- Jim
____________________
Jim Ruehlin, IBM Rational
RUP Content Developer
Eclipse Process Framework (EPF) Committer
email: jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: 760.505.3232
fax: 949.369.0720
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
--=_alternative 00634016882571A7_=--_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev