launchpad development|
Size: 1576
Comment:
|
Size: 4633
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| '''''Talk to the product strategist soon after cutting a first draft of this document''''' | ## page was renamed from LEP/Drafting/BugRelationships ''This LEP contains information from the [[LEP/BugLinking|Bug Linking LEP]]'' |
| Line 22: | Line 23: |
| ''Who really cares about this feature? When did you last talk to them?'' | * Launchpad Team Lead (Francis Lacoste) * Launchpad Project Manager (Matthew Revell) * Launchpad Technical Architect (Robert Collins) * Launchpad Squad Leaders (Gary Poster, Julian Edwards, Curtis Hovey, Deryck Hodge) ''Copied from LEP/BugLinking'' * OEM (Joey Stanford, Steve Magoun, Cody A.W. Somerville) * Hardware enablement (Chris Van Hoof, Hugh Blemings) * Ubuntu (Bryce Harrington) |
| Line 26: | Line 36: |
| <<Anchor(story-name>)>> | '''As an''' Ubuntu developer<<BR>> '''I want ''' to be able to mark a bug as being blocked by another bug<<BR>> '''so that ''' it is obvious in which order bugs need to be tackled<<BR>> |
| Line 28: | Line 40: |
| === $STORY_NAME === | '''As an''' upstream project maintainer <<BR>> '''I want''' to be able to mark a bug in my project as being the result of a bug in a dependency<<BR>> '''So that''' I can track the bug in my project separately from the dependency bug. |
| Line 30: | Line 44: |
| '''As a ''' $PERSON<<BR>> '''I want ''' $FEATURE<<BR>> '''so that ''' $BENEFIT<<BR>> |
'''As a ''' Launchpad Project Manager (or TA) <<BR>> '''I want ''' to be able to mark bug X as a "meta bug" of bugs A, B and C<<BR>> '''so that ''' I can use the bug tracker to track the development of features<<BR>> |
| Line 34: | Line 48: |
| ''Have as many as you like. Group user stories together into meaningfully deliverable units. They'll be used as the driving elements of exploratory testing QA.'' | '''As a ''' Launchpad Project Manager (or TA) <<BR>> '''I want ''' Launchpad to automatically close a meta-bug once all its child bugs are closed<<BR>> '''so that ''' I only have to watch the one bug in order to know that a given feature is complete<<BR>> '''As a ''' Launchpad developer <<BR>> '''I want ''' to be able to see the dependency/relationship tree for a bug<<BR>> '''so that ''' I know where to start with my work to fix the bug.<<BR>> '''From the [[LEP/BugLinking|BugLinking]] LEP:''' '''As a ''' driver of a private project<<BR>> '''I want ''' clone and link a bug that affects another project<<BR>> '''so that ''' confidential info is not disclosed to the other project<<BR>> '''As a ''' contributor to a private project<<BR>> '''I want ''' clone and link a bug that affects another project<<BR>> '''so that ''' confidential info is not disclosed to the other project<<BR>> '''As a ''' contributor to multiple projects<<BR>> '''I want ''' to be able to clone a bug from one project to another project<<BR>> '''so that ''' I can have separate conversations about the bug, each with their own disclosure level |
| Line 40: | Line 75: |
| ''What MUST the new behaviour provide?'' | 1. Provide the ability to say that one bug is related to another in some way. 2. Ensure that relationships between bugs shouldn't (usually) alter the way that either of those bugs behave 3. Provide the ability to mark a bug as a "meta bug" of two or more other bugs. 4. Provide the ability to create a public "clone" of a private bug, so that OEM-specific bugs that rely on community interactions for fixes can be exposed for outside contributions without the OEM's internal conversations having to be made public. |
| Line 44: | Line 83: |
| 1. Bug duplication described as a Bug Relationship. 2. Dependency graphs for bugs 3. Provide the inverse of "Must" #4: i.e. make it possible to create a private clone of a public bug. |
|
| Line 46: | Line 89: |
| ''What MUST it not do?'' | === Out of scope === |
| Line 48: | Line 91: |
| === Out of scope === | 1. Completely replacing (and removing) Blueprints. |
| Line 54: | Line 97: |
| * [[LEP/BugLinking|Bug Linking]] |
|
| Line 58: | Line 103: |
| We will know that this feature is complete when we can accurately model Launchpad feature development stories using bug relationships rather than bug tags (see thoughts). |
|
| Line 59: | Line 106: |
| Line 62: | Line 111: |
| ''Put everything else here. Better out than in.'' | * I've no idea how to measure success at this stage. I'd like to say "people use this more than they use Blueprints" but that's a) not a metric and b) foolish. * We probably need a lot of buy-in from the non-LP stakeholders to be able to consider this "done" but I'm not sure what form that buy-in would take. |
This LEP contains information from the Bug Linking LEP
Bug Relationships
Bug relationships in Launchpad will allow users to record the links between two or more bugs in the system. So, where one bug is blocking another being fixed, that can be shown as a relationship and so on.
Contact: gmb
On Launchpad: Link to a blueprint, milestone or (best) a bug tag search across launchpad-project
Consider clarifying the feature by describing what it is not?
Link this from LEP
Rationale
Why are we doing this now?
What value does this give our users? Which users?
Stakeholders
- Launchpad Team Lead (Francis Lacoste)
- Launchpad Project Manager (Matthew Revell)
- Launchpad Technical Architect (Robert Collins)
- Launchpad Squad Leaders (Gary Poster, Julian Edwards, Curtis Hovey, Deryck Hodge)
Copied from LEP/BugLinking
- OEM (Joey Stanford, Steve Magoun, Cody A.W. Somerville)
- Hardware enablement (Chris Van Hoof, Hugh Blemings)
- Ubuntu (Bryce Harrington)
User stories
As an Ubuntu developer
I want to be able to mark a bug as being blocked by another bug
so that it is obvious in which order bugs need to be tackled
As an upstream project maintainer
I want to be able to mark a bug in my project as being the result of a bug in a dependency
So that I can track the bug in my project separately from the dependency bug.
As a Launchpad Project Manager (or TA)
I want to be able to mark bug X as a "meta bug" of bugs A, B and C
so that I can use the bug tracker to track the development of features
As a Launchpad Project Manager (or TA)
I want Launchpad to automatically close a meta-bug once all its child bugs are closed
so that I only have to watch the one bug in order to know that a given feature is complete
As a Launchpad developer
I want to be able to see the dependency/relationship tree for a bug
so that I know where to start with my work to fix the bug.
From the BugLinking LEP:
As a driver of a private project
I want clone and link a bug that affects another project
so that confidential info is not disclosed to the other project
As a contributor to a private project
I want clone and link a bug that affects another project
so that confidential info is not disclosed to the other project
As a contributor to multiple projects
I want to be able to clone a bug from one project to another project
so that I can have separate conversations about the bug, each with their own disclosure level
Constraints and Requirements
Must
- Provide the ability to say that one bug is related to another in some way.
- Ensure that relationships between bugs shouldn't (usually) alter the way that either of those bugs behave
- Provide the ability to mark a bug as a "meta bug" of two or more other bugs.
- Provide the ability to create a public "clone" of a private bug, so that OEM-specific bugs that rely on community interactions for fixes can be exposed for outside contributions without the OEM's internal conversations having to be made public.
Nice to have
- Bug duplication described as a Bug Relationship.
- Dependency graphs for bugs
- Provide the inverse of "Must" #4: i.e. make it possible to create a private clone of a public bug.
Must not
Out of scope
- Completely replacing (and removing) Blueprints.
Subfeatures
Other LaunchpadEnhancementProposals that form a part of this one.
Success
How will we know when we are done?
We will know that this feature is complete when we can accurately model Launchpad feature development stories using bug relationships rather than bug tags (see thoughts).
How will we measure how well we have done?
Thoughts?
- I've no idea how to measure success at this stage. I'd like to say "people use this more than they use Blueprints" but that's a) not a metric and b) foolish.
- We probably need a lot of buy-in from the non-LP stakeholders to be able to consider this "done" but I'm not sure what form that buy-in would take.
