Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-5876

RFC process documentation is confusing

    Details

      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

          swinbank John Swinbank created issue -
          Hide
          swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

          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.

          Show
          swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - 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.
          Hide
          tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

          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.

          Show
          tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - 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.
          jsick Jonathan Sick made changes -
          Field Original Value New Value
          Assignee Jonathan Sick [ jsick ]
          jsick Jonathan Sick made changes -
          Status To Do [ 10001 ] In Progress [ 3 ]
          Hide
          jsick Jonathan Sick added a comment -

          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.

          Show
          jsick Jonathan Sick added a comment - 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.
          jsick Jonathan Sick made changes -
          Story Points 0.2 0.1
          Hide
          jsick Jonathan Sick added a comment -

          I think this should read more clearly. Thanks for pointing out the issue.

          Show
          jsick Jonathan Sick added a comment - I think this should read more clearly. Thanks for pointing out the issue.
          jsick Jonathan Sick made changes -
          Reviewers John Swinbank [ swinbank ]
          Status In Progress [ 3 ] In Review [ 10004 ]
          jsick Jonathan Sick made changes -
          Labels dm-dev-guide
          jsick Jonathan Sick made changes -
          Component/s Stack Documentation and UX [ 12880 ]
          jsick Jonathan Sick made changes -
          Epic Link DM-5403 [ 23210 ]
          Hide
          swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

          Looks good, thanks.

          Show
          swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - Looks good, thanks.
          swinbank John Swinbank made changes -
          Status In Review [ 10004 ] Reviewed [ 10101 ]
          jsick Jonathan Sick made changes -
          Resolution Done [ 10000 ]
          Status Reviewed [ 10101 ] Done [ 10002 ]
          frossie Frossie Economou made changes -
          Epic Link DM-5403 [ 23210 ] DM-6198 [ 24714 ]

            People

            • Assignee:
              jsick Jonathan Sick
              Reporter:
              swinbank John Swinbank
              Reviewers:
              John Swinbank
              Watchers:
              John Swinbank, Jonathan Sick, Tim Jenness
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              3 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:

                Summary Panel