|Deletions are marked like this.||Additions are marked like this.|
|Line 40:||Line 40:|
|You can have subsections that better describe specific parts of the issue.||As general principles, reports should be better connected to each other; they should live in (or be linked to from) one place; and they should be easily perusable.
A previous attempt at attacking this problem was in the form of the weather report ([[http://reports.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ogasawara/weatherreport.html|old]], [[http://reports.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/qadashboard/qadashboard.html|new]]; the new version has rather less detail). This was intended as a release management dashboard. Release management and the +1 maintenance team have different goals here in terms of the level of detail required, and it seems unlikely that first-pass work will be able to accommodate both in a single tool.
|Line 76:||Line 78:|
|Reports should be better connected to each other, live in (or be linked to from) one place, be easily perusable
http://reports.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ogasawara/weatherreport.html (currently dormant?)
http://reports.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/qadashboard/qadashboard.html the new version though maybe not as useful
Launchpad Entry: other-p-plusonemaint-infrastructure
We have many reports that help us keep track of automatically-detectable problems in the development release (FTBFS, NBS, component-mismatches, the conflict checker, the transition tracker, etc.). These are all well and good, but they are rather disconnected from each other and in many cases do not provide very good facilities for distributing work among developers. If we want to drive these reports consistently to zero, some time spent on infrastructure would be worthwhile. What can we do to improve matters?
This is not a user-visible specification.
We have lots of tools for tracking problems in the development release. Many have difficult to parse output:
- plain text files with no annotations, no bug links
- giant text files, no annotations, no bug links, no ability to blacklist
- no bug links
- need overview index
- merge from Debian trunk
- no bug links (not needed for simple rebuilds, but often ties into build failures)
- should show build failures more explicitly
UEHS (ubuntuwire) - is anyone still using it? (more useful from Debian perspective)
- out of scope for plusonemaint
As general principles, reports should be better connected to each other; they should live in (or be linked to from) one place; and they should be easily perusable.
A previous attempt at attacking this problem was in the form of the weather report (old, new; the new version has rather less detail). This was intended as a release management dashboard. Release management and the +1 maintenance team have different goals here in terms of the level of detail required, and it seems unlikely that first-pass work will be able to accommodate both in a single tool.
This section should describe a plan of action (the "how") to implement the changes discussed. Could include subsections like:
Should cover changes required to the UI, or specific UI that is required to implement this
Code changes should include an overview of what needs to change, and in some cases even the specific details.
- data migration, if any
- redirects from old URLs to new ones, if any
- how users will be pointed to the new way of doing things, if necessary.
It's important that we are able to test new features, and demonstrate them to users. Use this section to describe a short plan that anybody can follow that demonstrates the feature is working. This can then be used during testing, and to show off after release. Please add an entry to http://testcases.qa.ubuntu.com/Coverage/NewFeatures for tracking test coverage.
This need not be added or completed until the specification is nearing beta.
This should highlight any issues that should be addressed in further specifications, and not problems with the specification itself; since any specification with problems cannot be approved.
BoF agenda and discussion
Use this section to take notes during the BoF; if you keep it in the approved spec, use it for summarising what was discussed and note any options that were rejected.
Might be better to have a consolidated report listing packages with problems, rather than having to work through multiple reports http://harvest.ubuntu.com/opportunities/ * extend to release critical stuff? currently targeted at bitesize stuff. * e.g. current version of NBS data, build failures on test rebuilds etc. * fix editing (adding comments?) * per package * can mark opportunities as irrelevant right now merges.ubuntu.com - want to keep generally static, needs to be styled a bit. * merge with http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/oldmerges/ ? reports.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/qadashboard/qadashboard.html - stale? Automatic upgrade testing * QA is taking over mvo's automatic upgrade testing * repurpose antimony (after CD building moves to new machine) as lintian(?) and piuparts runner By comparison: http://lpqateam.canonical.com/ Lintian instance - useful to keep unpacked? consider doing so? piuparts.debian.org