we got that process in place for github - for svn its different since no "pull requests". I would say since we are moving to git anyway not worth coming up witha new jira workflow for this is there? /max On 28 Sep 2012, at 23:30, Denis Golovin <xden(a)exadel.com&gt; wrote: > Sounds like something that could be implemented in JIRA as custom workflow. > "Review" state should be added in JIRA workflow between "Resolved" and "Open"/"Reopened". Devs after submitting pull request moves it to "Review" (does it possible to provide link to pull request?) and assign to a reviewer. Reviewer can review changes in pull request and apply/merge them then move issue to "Resolved", if something is wrong move it to "Reopened". > > Not sure if we have rights in JIRA to create and assign new/custom workflow to JBossTools project. > > WDYT? > > Denis > Sent from my Google Nexus Phone > > Nick Boldt <nboldt(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> Rob proposed an idea for facilitating tracking of patches for review, >> using the "review" label in JIRA. >> >> Here's how that would work. >> >> 1. you work on a JIRA >> 2. you attach a patch >> 3. you add the "review" label to the JIRA >> 4. you assign the JIRA to the correct reviewer (eg., Max, Denis, Len...) >> >> When reviewed & approved: >> >> 1. reviewer signs their approval in the JIRA >> 2. reviewer assigns the JIRA back to the person who attached the patch >> 3. review changes the label from "review" to "review_approved" >> 4. you then commit the change and mark the JIRA resolved, so that QE can >> then later mark it resolved when verified. >> >> If you'd like to see an example query with these labels, check this out: >> >> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >> >> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >> >> Want to query for issues assigned to YOU to review or which you've >> approved? Use "assignee = currentUser()" in your queries: >> >> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >> >> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >> >> What do you think? Good idea? Process overkill? >> >> -- >> Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat >> Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio >> http://nick.divbyzero.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jbosstools-dev mailing list >> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev > _______________________________________________ > jbosstools-dev mailing list > jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev _______________________________________________ jbosstools-dev mailing list jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

On the SwitchYard side of things, we use "Link Pull Request" in our JIRA workflow. Typically, we just use this to indicate work is complete and ready to be pulled and use Github to actually manage the pull requests (i.e. I don't think anybody looks at JIRA to determine what changes need to be pulled). Once the pull request is sent, most of the review comments take place in the context of the pull request on github. I think other groups use gist, but I'm not familiar with it.

> Even in Git I still feel the labels don't take much time and do make > stuff much more clear.

> But I can understand if people think it's not > worth the effort. > > On 10/01/2012 09:50 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >> we got that process in place for github - for svn its different >> since no "pull requests". >> >> I would say since we are moving to git anyway not worth coming up >> witha new jira workflow for this is there? >> >> /max >> >> On 28 Sep 2012, at 23:30, Denis Golovin <xden(a)exadel.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> Sounds like something that could be implemented in JIRA as custom >>> workflow. >>> "Review" state should be added in JIRA workflow between "Resolved" >>> and "Open"/"Reopened". Devs after submitting pull request moves >>> it to "Review" (does it possible to provide link to pull >>> request?) and assign to a reviewer. Reviewer can review changes >>> in pull request and apply/merge them then move issue to >>> "Resolved", if something is wrong move it to "Reopened". >>> >>> Not sure if we have rights in JIRA to create and assign new/custom >>> workflow to JBossTools project. >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Denis >>> Sent from my Google Nexus Phone >>> >>> Nick Boldt <nboldt(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> Rob proposed an idea for facilitating tracking of patches for >>>> review, >>>> using the "review" label in JIRA. >>>> >>>> Here's how that would work. >>>> >>>> 1. you work on a JIRA >>>> 2. you attach a patch >>>> 3. you add the "review" label to the JIRA >>>> 4. you assign the JIRA to the correct reviewer (eg., Max, Denis, >>>> Len...) >>>> >>>> When reviewed & approved: >>>> >>>> 1. reviewer signs their approval in the JIRA >>>> 2. reviewer assigns the JIRA back to the person who attached the >>>> patch >>>> 3. review changes the label from "review" to "review_approved" >>>> 4. you then commit the change and mark the JIRA resolved, so that >>>> QE can >>>> then later mark it resolved when verified. >>>> >>>> If you'd like to see an example query with these labels, check >>>> this out: >>>> >>>> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >>>> >>>> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >>>> >>>> Want to query for issues assigned to YOU to review or which >>>> you've >>>> approved? Use "assignee = currentUser()" in your queries: >>>> >>>> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >>>> >>>> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >>>> >>>> What do you think? Good idea? Process overkill? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat >>>> Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio >>>> http://nick.divbyzero.com >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jbosstools-dev mailing list >> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > jbosstools-dev mailing list > jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev > _______________________________________________ jbosstools-dev mailing list jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

Pull Request Pending is very clear when the request is still pending. It is less clear when you're doing searches for all pull requests that made it in targeted to version x.y.z.AlphaBetaGamma37

On 10/03/2012 12:20 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: > On 02 Oct 2012, at 16:47, Rob Cernich <rcernich(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> On the SwitchYard side of things, we use "Link Pull Request" in >> our JIRA workflow. Typically, we just use this to indicate work >> is complete and ready to be pulled and use Github to actually >> manage the pull requests (i.e. I don't think anybody looks at >> JIRA to determine what changes need to be pulled). Once the pull >> request is sent, most of the review comments take place in the >> context of the pull request on github. I think other groups use >> gist, but I'm not familiar with it. > gist ?! how does that work ? > >>> Even in Git I still feel the labels don't take much time and do >>> make >>> stuff much more clear. > How can "Pull request pending" be less clear than the label ? > > wouldn't it be rather redundant ? > > /max > >>> But I can understand if people think it's not >>> worth the effort. >>> >>> On 10/01/2012 09:50 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>>> we got that process in place for github - for svn its different >>>> since no "pull requests". >>>> >>>> I would say since we are moving to git anyway not worth coming >>>> up >>>> witha new jira workflow for this is there? >>>> >>>> /max >>>> >>>> On 28 Sep 2012, at 23:30, Denis Golovin <xden(a)exadel.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sounds like something that could be implemented in JIRA as >>>>> custom >>>>> workflow. >>>>> "Review" state should be added in JIRA workflow between >>>>> "Resolved" >>>>> and "Open"/"Reopened". Devs after submitting pull request moves >>>>> it to "Review" (does it possible to provide link to pull >>>>> request?) and assign to a reviewer. Reviewer can review changes >>>>> in pull request and apply/merge them then move issue to >>>>> "Resolved", if something is wrong move it to "Reopened". >>>>> >>>>> Not sure if we have rights in JIRA to create and assign >>>>> new/custom >>>>> workflow to JBossTools project. >>>>> >>>>> WDYT? >>>>> >>>>> Denis >>>>> Sent from my Google Nexus Phone >>>>> >>>>> Nick Boldt <nboldt(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Rob proposed an idea for facilitating tracking of patches for >>>>>> review, >>>>>> using the "review" label in JIRA. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's how that would work. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. you work on a JIRA >>>>>> 2. you attach a patch >>>>>> 3. you add the "review" label to the JIRA >>>>>> 4. you assign the JIRA to the correct reviewer (eg., Max, >>>>>> Denis, >>>>>> Len...) >>>>>> >>>>>> When reviewed & approved: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. reviewer signs their approval in the JIRA >>>>>> 2. reviewer assigns the JIRA back to the person who attached >>>>>> the >>>>>> patch >>>>>> 3. review changes the label from "review" to "review_approved" >>>>>> 4. you then commit the change and mark the JIRA resolved, so >>>>>> that >>>>>> QE can >>>>>> then later mark it resolved when verified. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you'd like to see an example query with these labels, check >>>>>> this out: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >>>>>> >>>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >>>>>> >>>>>> Want to query for issues assigned to YOU to review or which >>>>>> you've >>>>>> approved? Use "assignee = currentUser()" in your queries: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >>>>>> >>>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? Good idea? Process overkill? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat >>>>>> Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio >>>>>> http://nick.divbyzero.com >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> jbosstools-dev mailing list >> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev > > _______________________________________________ > jbosstools-dev mailing list > jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev _______________________________________________ jbosstools-dev mailing list jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

On 03 Oct 2012, at 14:47, Rob Cernich <rcernich(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> Pull Request Pending is very clear when the request is still >> pending. >> >> It is less clear when you're doing searches for all pull requests >> that >> made it in targeted to version x.y.z.AlphaBetaGamma37 > > If it's pending, the pull request has not been processed and > therefore wouldn't be in a targeted version. that sounds like you dont set fix version for the jiras you plan to fix in that version ? how can you see what is planned/missing for a version then ?

/max > For us, the person doing the pushing is responsible for resolving > the JIRA. I suspect you'll probably want to mark the JIRA as > pushed and assign it to QA for testing. > >> >> On 10/03/2012 12:20 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>> On 02 Oct 2012, at 16:47, Rob Cernich <rcernich(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On the SwitchYard side of things, we use "Link Pull Request" in >>>> our JIRA workflow. Typically, we just use this to indicate work >>>> is complete and ready to be pulled and use Github to actually >>>> manage the pull requests (i.e. I don't think anybody looks at >>>> JIRA to determine what changes need to be pulled). Once the >>>> pull >>>> request is sent, most of the review comments take place in the >>>> context of the pull request on github. I think other groups use >>>> gist, but I'm not familiar with it. >>> gist ?! how does that work ? >>> >>>>> Even in Git I still feel the labels don't take much time and do >>>>> make >>>>> stuff much more clear. >>> How can "Pull request pending" be less clear than the label ? >>> >>> wouldn't it be rather redundant ? >>> >>> /max >>> >>>>> But I can understand if people think it's not >>>>> worth the effort. >>>>> >>>>> On 10/01/2012 09:50 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>>>>> we got that process in place for github - for svn its >>>>>> different >>>>>> since no "pull requests". >>>>>> >>>>>> I would say since we are moving to git anyway not worth coming >>>>>> up >>>>>> witha new jira workflow for this is there? >>>>>> >>>>>> /max >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28 Sep 2012, at 23:30, Denis Golovin <xden(a)exadel.com&gt; >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sounds like something that could be implemented in JIRA as >>>>>>> custom >>>>>>> workflow. >>>>>>> "Review" state should be added in JIRA workflow between >>>>>>> "Resolved" >>>>>>> and "Open"/"Reopened". Devs after submitting pull request >>>>>>> moves >>>>>>> it to "Review" (does it possible to provide link to pull >>>>>>> request?) and assign to a reviewer. Reviewer can review >>>>>>> changes >>>>>>> in pull request and apply/merge them then move issue to >>>>>>> "Resolved", if something is wrong move it to "Reopened". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not sure if we have rights in JIRA to create and assign >>>>>>> new/custom >>>>>>> workflow to JBossTools project. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Denis >>>>>>> Sent from my Google Nexus Phone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nick Boldt <nboldt(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rob proposed an idea for facilitating tracking of patches >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> review, >>>>>>>> using the "review" label in JIRA. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's how that would work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. you work on a JIRA >>>>>>>> 2. you attach a patch >>>>>>>> 3. you add the "review" label to the JIRA >>>>>>>> 4. you assign the JIRA to the correct reviewer (eg., Max, >>>>>>>> Denis, >>>>>>>> Len...) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When reviewed & approved: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. reviewer signs their approval in the JIRA >>>>>>>> 2. reviewer assigns the JIRA back to the person who attached >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> patch >>>>>>>> 3. review changes the label from "review" to >>>>>>>> "review_approved" >>>>>>>> 4. you then commit the change and mark the JIRA resolved, so >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> QE can >>>>>>>> then later mark it resolved when verified. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you'd like to see an example query with these labels, >>>>>>>> check >>>>>>>> this out: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Want to query for issues assigned to YOU to review or which >>>>>>>> you've >>>>>>>> approved? Use "assignee = currentUser()" in your queries: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator!executeAdvanced.jspa?jqlQu... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you think? Good idea? Process overkill? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat >>>>>>>> Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio >>>>>>>> http://nick.divbyzero.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>>>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jbosstools-dev mailing list >> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > jbosstools-dev mailing list > jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

>>> >>> If it's pending, the pull request has not been processed and >>> therefore wouldn't be in a targeted version. >> >> that sounds like you dont set fix version for the jiras you plan >> to >> fix in that version ? >> >> how can you see what is planned/missing for a version then ? > > I never said we don't set the fix version. I said, if the JIRA > state is "Pull Request Pending" then that pull request has not > been processed, meaning the patch has not been applied, meaning > the "fix" is not yet in the targeted version. (Although, it could > also mean somebody forgot to update the JIRA state after > processing the pull. In which case the dev that issued the > request will politely remind whoever did the pushing to update the > JIRA.) Yeah :) I think what Rob or at least I was looking for was if there was a way to find the issues that have had pullrequests approved - since the pull request url is there even with or without a pullrequest being approved or not. i.e with the label approach you could find all those that have been reviewed. But yeah, I think its probably just fine to rely on if Jira is Resolved and github pull request url is set then it was fixed via that pull request. Anything else sounds like over-process.

/max