Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[wtp-pmc] Agenda for February 28, 2006 telecon

Call Info: 866-214-3176 or 404-827-9098. Access code 8870689.

 

Agenda:

  • Community
    • Weekly report
    • Logo selection
    • Website update
  • Procedural items
    • Update on ATF proposal
  • 1.0.1 Wrapup
    • All-in-one packaging
    • Update site stability
    • Anything else lingering?
  • 1.0.2 Status
  • 1.5 / Callisto
    • Status / readiness for M5 (and EclipseCon) check
    • 1.5 plan migration to website / finalization and announcement
    • Callisto testing
  • Architecture (David)
    • Review of architectural diagram David is submitting to the (EMO level) Architecture Council
  • JSF status (Raghu)
  • Hotlist process discussion (my process suggestion attached; see wtp-dev for backstory)
  • Additional topics

 

 

 

From: Tim Wagner
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 8:19 PM
To: 'WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements, and Group discussions)'
Subject: hot list process/mechanism

I appreciate the energetic discussion on the wtp-dev list, but we need to ensure that we’re achieving the project’s aims with this critical support mechanism. I describe a possible approach below; let’s review where we are on this discussion on the Tuesday call.

 

 

I believe we need to retain control over what goes on the hotlist, although mastering the data in Bugzilla, automating generation of the hot list on the WTP site, and getting “please add …” noise off wtp-dev are all worthwhile goals.

 

Here’s one process that addresses these concerns without wholesale revisiting of the hotlist concept:

 

  • Create a bug to represent the “Hot List Suggestion Box” (per release). Anyone can add a comment requesting a new addition to the hot list, discuss existing requests, indicate a suggestion has been accepted, record a decline, etc.
  • One person is designated “promoter”; when a decision is reached to promote a suggestion to the hot list, the promoter adds a comment to the defect with a standard syntax.
  • The WTP adopter page hotlist report searches the comments in this bug and uses these special entries to produce the hot list report. We can augment the current report with additional columns for requesting adopter, etc. as we see fit by augmenting the form of the entries and the report generation logic. Note that only the promoter’s comments are used, so there is no possibility of an “accidental” promotion by others.

 

The only downside I see with the above is that a standard Bugzilla query cannot be used; if we want to achieve that without giving up control over promotion, then we can use a proxy defect / hotlist entry in lieu of comments and a text converter:

 

  • (Alternative approach) When a decision is reached to promote a bug to the hotlist, the promoter creates a proxy defect that depends on the original bug, titling it “[hotlist] <original title>”.
  • To view the hotlist bugs, you search for [hotlist] in the title *and* the promoter as submitter; this search can be done in Bugzilla and no special postprocessing is required to view the results.

 


From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 10:50 AM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Re-Inventing Hot List

 


Sounds like we have a ways to go to resolve these issues.
I, for one, would like to see this moved off the wtp-dev mailing list, and utilitize bugzilla better.

As it it, being on the dev list has effect of either wasting time, or watering down the importance, since
when someone says "please add xxxx to hot list" ... EVERYONE has to click on it to see if
something they should pay more attention to. Or .. else, ignore it, and wait for someone else
to tell them what is on their top priority list.

It even seems the "seperate list" queries are often out of date, so, hard to trust them.



"Konstantin Komissarchik" <kosta@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

02/22/2006 12:04 PM

Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To

"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

cc

 

Subject

RE: [wtp-dev] Re-Inventing Hot List

 

 

 




Here are the problems that I see with the process as it currently exists:
 
1. There is no gate to the hot list. Nothing to control what gets added. I’ve seen issues that have minimal impact and documented workarounds be tracked on the hot list.
2. We are under-utilizing the priority and severity fields by focusing exclusively on the hot bugs at the status meetings.
3. The hot bugs are not marked in bugzilla, making it very difficult to construct queries around them.
4. There is no one to arbitrate disagreements over the categorization.
5. And finally, the hot list creates at least an appearance of an “exclusive club” that’s fundamentally against the ethos of open source. An S1 coming from a WTP end user should (in my opinion) be resolved with a higher urgency than an S4 coming from a major adopter.  
 
I realize that my proposal uses the severity field in a novel way, but think about it this way. Assignment of the initial severity is in the hands of the bug originator. It’s a way for them to rank how much an impact this is having on them. It might be a spelling issue, but if the impact of that from the originator’s perspective is that they will not ship until the problem is fixed, then that issue ranks as a high severity. Alternative, the spelling problem might be buried deep in some dialog, so the originator might assign a lower severity to that. If there is a disagreement the triage is there to arbitrate. What about that million character URL example? As the likelihood of anyone running into this is rather low, it’s a low severity issue despite the fact that it causes a crash. Let’s take another example. Suppose an adopter is developing a tool on top of WTP and requires a hook of some sort in order to get their scenario working properly. Unless a workaround is found or the hook is added, their scenario is dead in the water. That deserves to be an S1. The problem with the bugzilla definition of the severity levels is that they are too restrictive. Technically, asking for an api hook under the current system would force the bug to be marked as an enhancement request. There is no way for the originator to indicate the _actual_ impact of the problem.
 
My proposal would establish a concrete way to categorize the actual impact of the bug on the originator that we can all talk about in a meaningful way. It establishes a triage committee to arbitrate disagreements. And, finally, it re-emphasizes that if a bug is targeted to a certain release, one can have a good degree of certainty that it will be fixed in that release.
 
- Konstantin
 

 



From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
Sent:
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:13 AM
To:
General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject:
Re: [wtp-dev] Re-Inventing Hot List

 

Kosta,


Thx for the suggestions. Let's take a step back for a minute and review why we have a Hot Bug process.


WTP has two main goals:


       1) Provide tools for Web application developers.
       2) Provide a platform for tool developers.


Both of these are very important for the success of WTP. The Hot Bug process is aimed at goal #2.


There are many more application developers than tool developers so the bugs that are important to tools developers can easily get lost in the large bugzilla backlog. To put things in perspective,  there have been a total of 6700 bugs opened for WTP to date, but only 200 of them are Hot Bugs. That's around 3% of the total.


We need to treat tool vendors, aka adopters, differently. WTP is the first Eclipse project, AFAIK, to treat adopters specially. The current process needs to be refined over time. I'm sure we don't have it right yet.


However, I don't think we should rely on severity since I'd like us to use severity correctly. Sometimes an adopter problem does not meet the criteria for Blocking or Critical but is still very important. A Major problem could be enough for an adopter to not use WTP. The meaning of Major is that some major function is unusable. That major function might be exactly what the adopter needs.


This means we need to use another field. Priority is orthogonal to severity. Priority is our way of saying what we are going to work on. If we mark a bug as P1 then it is release-defining, i.e. we should delay the release if a P1 function is broken. That translates into how we allocate our resources. We need to plan our work so that we fix all the P1s first, then the P2s, etc.


To make this more concrete, suppose there was a bug in our HTML editor that caused Eclipse to crash whenever the HTML editor opened a document that contained a URL that was longer that 1,000,000 characters. That would be a Critical bug because it caused a crash, but I would assign it a very low priority because it is a very extreme edge case and would never affect a user.


In contrast, suppose our server tools listed a server adapter for IMB WebSphere. I'd immediately open a Hot Bug to get that corrected. From my point of view that would be a P1, but the severity would be trivial.


Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@xxxxxxx

"Konstantin Komissarchik" <kosta@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

02/21/2006 09:36 PM

 

Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."

 

To

"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

cc

 

Subject

[wtp-dev] Re-Inventing Hot List


 

 

 

 





I’d like to start the conversation about how we can improve the Adopter Hot List process going forward. Here is a proposal to get us started. Feel free to poke holes in it...

 
This proposal places more emphasis on the severity field and establishes a strict release exit criteria for high severity issues. A triage committee (composed of PMC members or their designated replacements) would be established in order to resolve disagreements over the severity and other issues.

 

  • In order to exit a release all S1 (Blocking Severity) and S2 (Critical Severity) bugs targeted to that release have to be resolved. Additionally, there should not be any untargeted/uninvestigated S1/S2 bugs. The triage committee can push bugs of lower severity that are targeted to that release to the next release if there isn’t sufficient time remaining in order to resolve them.
  • All S1/S2 bugs will be reviewed at the weekly status meetings. The severity as set by the originator can be challenged. The triage committee will arbitrate and have the power to assign a lower severity if necessary.
  • Anyone can submit a bug of a lower priority to the weekly status meeting agenda in order to get the status or to request a targeting decision.
  • A bug is only targeted to a particular release when a dev has made a commitment to work on it for that release.
  • Once a bug is targeted, that setting cannot be changed without the approval of the originator or the triage committee. This applies to all bugs regardless of the severity.

 
I believe that if the above process is implemented and abided by than we no longer need the Adopter Hot List. Thoughts?

 
- Konstantin

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.

Back to the top