[Python-Dev] Addition of further status options to tracker
brett at python.org
Tue Mar 10 05:23:54 CET 2009
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 21:00, Tennessee Leeuwenburg
<tleeuwenburg at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 20:25, Tennessee Leeuwenburg <
>> tleeuwenburg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I am beginning reviewing some more issues in the tracker. I think it
>>> would be useful to have the following status options (new status options
>>> marked with a '+'):
>>> Open: Means that the issue has been created and not further reviewed
>>> + Request Approved: Means that the issue is marked as worth further
>>> development by the community
>>> + Specification Approved: Means that the functionality to be developed
>>> is written down in some form, and agreed at least in general terms
>>> (preferably in fairly specific terms)
>>> + Under Development: Means that an implementation is currently under
>>> Pending Feedback: Means that work is suspended pending feedback
>>> + Under Final Review: Means that a patch has been submitted and may be
>>> a flag that core developers can usefully review the work done without having
>>> to revisit the whole process
>>> Closed: Means that the issue is either suspended indefinitely or has
>>> been resolved (see resolution value)
>> I assume you want all of this for the Status field, correct?
>> As for the options, some of these overlap with the Stage field. For
>> instance, if something has been set to any stage other than
>> "accepted/rejected" it means it needs to be looked into, so that duplicates
>> your "Request Approved" status. Similar thing with the review stages and
>> "Under Final Review".
>> But a general "under development" status would probably be worth adding.
>> That way if an issue is "open" it needs attention, "Under development" means
>> someone is working on a solution, "pending" means someone is blocking the
>> issue for more information, and "closed" means closed.
>> One thing to watch out for, Tennessee, is getting too specific. Like your
>> "Request Approved" and "Specification Approved" just seems too heavy-handed
>> to my tastes. Personally, I prefer to make sure the issue workflow to be
>> somewhat simple so that people don't end up arguing over stuff like whether
>> something has been specified well enough to have it set to "Spec Approved"
>> even if someone else disagrees (which you know would happen).
> Hi Brett,
> Some great points. The "stage" settings do overlap a lot of what I had
> suggested. What I'm trying to reach is a way to flag quite clearly whether a
> tracker issue is:
> * In need of a first response
> * Being taken care of by someone
> * Needs the attention of core developers, just about ready
> At the moment, the open/closed settings are a bit useless -- issues are
> "Open" until they are finished, at which point they are "Closed". I
> personally suspect that "Pending feedback" is little-used.
For now. But once auto-closing of pending issues is set up then it will get
used consistently (don't ask me when that is happening, I just know Daniel
and Martin have been talking about it).
> At the moment, many "Open" issues are in various states of maturity or
> disrepair, so the only really useful information is whether an issue is
> Examining the stage options more closely, they are very code-oriented.
Right, because we are dealing with code. =)
> Really they relate to implementation, not other parts of the process. It's
> difficult for me as someone who wants to help out with the Issue resolution
> process as much as coding to take an atomic action to help advance the issue
> through a process.
> What do you think about the following "Status" flags:
> * Open: Means newly-created, needs early attention
> * + Request for Comment: Means that a discussion regarding functionality
> is requested
> * + Under Development: Means that a caring developer is taking care of it
> * Pending Feedback: blocking on new information
> * Closed: Means closed
> Once the issue is marked as under development, more information is then
> provided by the "Stage" flag.
> "Request for Comment" means that anyone who is stuck on trying to get their
> ideas sorted or a loose specification agreed on can call for feedback
> through this flag. There's still some risk of arguments blocking the
> progression to "Under development", but the issue owner can at least pass to
> "Under development" at their own will without requiring universal agreement.
There is also a worry of abuse if anyone can set this. If only people in the
Developer role can set this then that's fine. But if people start using this
just to get attention because they are unhappy with how slowly something is
going it will kill its usefulness.
> Core developers can then search on 'commit review' or 'patch review' to see
> what could use their attention, while people who are happy to contribute to
> the debate can search on "Open" and "Request for Comment" issues. Obviously
> the RFC flag is redundant when an issue is first raised, since the submitter
> always has the option of simply emailing this list. However, for older,
> potentially stale issues, it is a useful indicator that the issue may be
> either closed out or could use refreshing.
> I don't mind what approach is taken -- I'm happy to work within the current
> infrastructure if someone can suggest a good way. I really just want to be
> able to start distinguishing between issues that are essentially new and
> under debate versus issues that most people agree are a "Good Thing To Do",
> and then helping those issues advance to the point of implementation by
> discussing and, if necessary, formalising or recording requirements against
I have always viewed it that if Stage is set to anything other than its
empty default it is worth looking into. But it seems to me what you are
after is some obvious way to disambiguate issues that are feature requests
that someone has just asked for and anyone can work on if they want, and
issues that require attention, i.e. bugs and patches. Is that accurate?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev