View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000127 | Aardvark Bugs | Aardvark Mk III | public | 2009-07-31 15:20 | 2009-10-25 22:04 |
| Reporter | msbrown | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | Comment | Type | Enhancement Request |
| Status | Closed | Resolution | Accepted | ||
| Name | Mark Brown | ||||
| Organization | IBM | ||||
| User Reference | |||||
| Summary | 0000127: Add two new statuses for Interpretations | ||||
| Description | We need more steps to show the status of bugs that have been sent for standards interpretation. | ||||
| Desired Action | Add after the "Needs Interpretation" status level, two new status levels: Interpretation Raised then Interpretation Closed | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
<via Geoff Clare> I have thought of a problem with our intention to use additional status codes to handle the workflow for interpretations. It concerns what happens once bugs reach Applied or Closed status. At that point there will be no easy way to tell which bugs were interpretations and which weren't. To distinguish them you would have to look at the bug history to see the sequence of status codes it went through, or read the notes. So, I think that adding status codes is not sufficient. We need a new field which shows the interpretation status independently of the main bug status. I suggest that the main bug status codes should be: New, Under Review, Interpretation Required, Resolved, Applied, Closed (this is the current list minus Resolution Proposed), and the interpretation status codes should be: Unknown, Not Required, Pending, Proposed, Approved Unknown would be the initial value, up until the main bug status hits either Interpretation Required or Resolved (depending which route it takes). Not Required would be used for bugs that don't go down the interp route. It would be set when the main bug status is set to Resolved, and would stay on this value as the main bug status progresses to Applied and Closed. Pending would be used when the main bug status is Interpretation Required but the interp review has not started. Proposed would mean the interp review is in progress. Approved would mean the interp review has completed. At this point the main bug status would change to Resolved. The interp status would stay on Approved as the main bug status progresses to Applied and Closed. (I have suggested "Proposed" and "Approved" since those are the words used in the old interps system, but different words could be used if desired.) |
|
|
group approves Geoff's solution in general; replace 'unknown' with just "-", not have a "not required" state. Also needed as part of the bug, is retro-fitting the state on bugs already having an interp to use this new scheme. |
|
|
I've added the new "Interp Status" field. I am not going to remove the Status: Resolution Proposed field just yet, as I recall its original intent was for resolutions we wanted to put back out into the community for discussion. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-07-31 15:20 | msbrown | New Issue | |
| 2009-07-31 15:20 | msbrown | Name | => Mark Brown |
| 2009-07-31 15:20 | msbrown | Organization | => IBM |
| 2009-07-31 18:06 | msbrown | Note Added: 0000170 | |
| 2009-08-06 15:09 | msbrown | Note Added: 0000173 | |
| 2009-08-06 21:55 | msbrown | Note Added: 0000192 | |
| 2009-08-06 21:56 | msbrown | Status | New => Applied |
| 2009-08-06 21:56 | msbrown | Resolution | Open => Accepted |
| 2009-10-25 22:04 | msbrown | Status | Applied => Closed |
