Details
-
Type:
Story
-
Status: Done
-
Resolution: Done
-
Fix Version/s: None
-
Component/s: Stack Documentation and UX
-
Labels:
-
Story Points:0.1
-
Epic Link:
-
Team:SQuaRE
Description
The Developer Guide tells us:
When consensus is established, and a set of implementation tickets is created, the Assignee is responsible for marking the RFC as Adopted in JIRA.
Once the RFC is adopted, the Assignee should create tickets that implement the implementation plan.
This seems to imply that we create one set of implementation tickets before hitting "adopted", and another set afterwards. I'm sure that isn't the intention. Please clarify.
Attachments
Activity
Ah, that does read weird. The intent is for a ticket that is in the Adopted state to have a bunch of "is triggering" tickets that describe how the RFC will be implemented. Once all those "is triggering" tickets are closed the RFC is effectively in IMPLEMENTED state. (the hope was to write a quick script that would scan all Adopted RFCs, check the state of "is triggering" tickets and then automatically mark them implemented).
I have seen people using "blocks" rather than "is triggering" but I fix those when I find them.
| Field | Original Value | New Value |
|---|---|---|
| Assignee | Jonathan Sick [ jsick ] |
| Status | To Do [ 10001 ] | In Progress [ 3 ] |
Will fix shortly. I recall there being discussion/ambiguity on when tickets should be made during the review process for this doc. I like Tim Jenness's interpretation.
| Story Points | 0.2 | 0.1 |
I think this should read more clearly. Thanks for pointing out the issue.
| Reviewers | John Swinbank [ swinbank ] | |
| Status | In Progress [ 3 ] | In Review [ 10004 ] |
| Labels | dm-dev-guide |
| Component/s | Stack Documentation and UX [ 12880 ] |
| Epic Link | DM-5403 [ 23210 ] |
Looks good, thanks.
| Status | In Review [ 10004 ] | Reviewed [ 10101 ] |
| Resolution | Done [ 10000 ] | |
| Status | Reviewed [ 10101 ] | Done [ 10002 ] |
Tim Jenness, added you as a watcher on this because you sparked the issue, even though you might not have realised it.
I'm sure the intention is to have tickets created before the RFC is adopted, and I'll submit a PR which makes that clear shortly – unless somebody beats me to it.