[visit-developers] GForge bug tracking

Mark Miller miller86 at llnl.gov
Tue May 5 12:53:59 EDT 2009


Hi Tom,

Ok, I've just submitted my first bug report as well as responded to an
existing report on GForge. And, I have some comments about current
interface/process...

     A. I think the 'module' field on the bug submission form should go
        away. I have never found it useful on our orig. Clearquest
        system at LLNL and I think it is often difficult to assign a
        given bug to a given 'module'. Others likely have a diff.
        opinion about this field but my recommendation is to just remove
        it.
     B. I see there is a 'fixed in version' field but no 'found in
        version' field. I think the latter is really the one we need on
        a submission form. So, maybe we just need to edit 'fixed' to
        'found'?
     C. What is 'priority' for? Can it be removed. I think its redundant
        relative to the 'other' scoring criteria we are using.
     D. I noticed that some of the fields have a clickable quistion mark
        next to them to get more help. Can we add these for all the
        scoring fields?
     E. The customer field appears to be text entry. If so, typos can
        reak havoc there. Is there any mechanism for creating a db of
        customers? If not, what do we enter into this field. A text
        string of a name, an email address? Also, if we do enter email
        address, what happens? Do emails get spewed to that address with
        each and every action on the item?
     F. What is it asking for 'Resolution' on a 'submission' form. Am I
        thinking about this wrong. Is the 'submission' form really a
        snapshot of the whole ticket, including all its past,present and
        potientially future states?

Mark

On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:55 -0600, tom fogal wrote:
> So.. this has been up and working, as far as I'm concerned, for a while
> now.
> 
>   https:// outreach.scidac.gov/tracker/?atid=406&group_id=13&func=browse
> 
> The current status is that we need an LLNL volunteer to script the
> import of existing clearcase bugs.  I haven't heard any complaints, but
> then again it seems like I'm the only one that's used it, + Jeremy has
> been through a test run.
> 
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------
> As something that can be done `now', I propose we just start using
> the outreach center's tracker almost exclusively.  That is, any *new*
> issues should just get entered there.
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This makes things a real pain for the LLNL users (you'd have to check
> both systems for every query).. but I'm not sure there's much to be
> done there.  I expect if we wait for volunteers again, it will get
> backburnered since this isn't critical.
> 
> Eventually it'll have enough data to become useful enough on its own.
> At least then the non-LLNL folks have something work with.
> 
> -tom
> 
-- 
Mark C. Miller, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
email: mailto:miller86 at llnl.gov
(M/T/W) (925)-423-5901 (!!LLNL BUSINESS ONLY!!)
(Th/F)  (530)-753-8511 (!!LLNL BUSINESS ONLY!!)



More information about the visit-developers mailing list