Documenting how we handle regression in the issue tracker

Development
1

Hi devs,

I’ve documented how we handle regressions in JIRA at https://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#HRule:RegressionHandling

Let me know if you see any issue vs our practice.

Thanks

2

+1 thanks
A small additional step could be to mention @committers in #xwiki to make sure that everybody is aware of the new blocker.

3

We could but IMO this is the same as finding an assignee to work on it ASAP.

4

+1,

Thanks,
Marius

5

+1 from me,
Thanks :slight_smile:

6

Hello,

I think we’re currently not following https://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#HRule:RegressionHandling WRT setting the blocker priority.

See Loading...

Some thoughts/issues:

  • I guess one problem is identifying the jira issue which caused the regression. For ex Loading... hasn’t identified it yet. So maybe one rule should be that when we get a regression issue, we need to treat it as a priority to analyze the cause since it could be a blocker issue? WDYT?
  • For Loading..., Marius has tried to analyse it at Loading... but hasn’t found the cause of the regression and has set it as “critical” (but it could be a blocker if the regression is less than 2 years old).
  • For Loading... I’m pretty sure it’s less than 2 years old so it should be a blocker according to the rule. So the issue might be the importance of the regression missing in the rule. WDYT?
  • For Loading... , it is not following our current rule re regressions so either we need to change the priority or propose an amendment to the rule. WDYT?

Thanks

7

One possible amendment to the rule is to say that when a developer think that the rule should not be followed, it must be discussed on the #xwiki chat to get the agreement of at least 3 developers and a comment must be posted on the issue (+ listing the devs who agree to change the priority).

WDYT?

8

I’m all for a discussion, but why on the chat specifically and not in the forum, for instance?

9

Because I thought it was too heavy a process for the forum. But if we are all ok for the forum then fine.

10

I’m fine with the forum as a fallback in case the chat discussion does not conclude quickly enough.
And +1 for the amendemnt btw :slight_smile: