[Monetdb-developers] Re: TTT goes MonetDB-Bug-Day

Fabian Fabian.Groffen at cwi.nl
Wed Oct 5 19:42:57 CEST 2005

Stefan Manegold wrote:
> To avoid that everyone starts (trying) to claim the same bugs, here are some
> bug IDs as entry points. Each one chooses a different entry point, and from
> there on processes the bugs in in ascending order of bug ID.


> Please indicate you choice by (group) replying to this mail. I will resolve
> clashes where necessary.  In case there are more than 15 people
> participating (concurrently), we can easily sub-divide the ranges.

Hereby I initially claim:

> Creating test scripts
> ---------------------
> In case it is obvious that the bug does not require a test script (e.g.,
> compilation, installation, or web site bugs), please indicate this by adding
> a comment like
> 	BugDay_2005-10-06: Done.
> 	No test script added, because <good reason>.

I'd like to suggest to the following 'codes':

code                      explanation
CLAIMED BY              | the bug is being processed by (append name)
RELEASED / REASSIGN     | the owner of the bug wasn't able to create a
                         | script from the bug due to insufficient
                         | knowledge.  Append reason, e.g. "XQuery"
ALREADY IN TESTWEB      | the script was already in CVS and TestWeb
TEST ADDED / SUCCESS    | a script was added (append name) and works
                         | correctly
TEST ADDED / FAILURE    | a script was added, but it fails (bad output)
TEST SUBMITTED          | a script was made, but sent to Stefan (for
                         | non-CVS participants)
NO TEST / COMPILATION   | no test was added because the bug deals with a
                         | compilation problem
NO TEST / DOCUMENTATION | no test was added because the bug deals with a
                         | documentation issue, or misleading help text,
                         | etc.
NO TEST / REDUNDANT     | no test was added, because either the bug
                         | itself is a duplicate, or the test that
                         | follows out of the bug would clearly be
                         | duplicating another existing bug.  When
                         | extending another bug to remove redundancy
                         | use TEST ADDED / SUCCESS and give the name of
                         | the already existing updated bug.

Note: the last action is only meant for experts in their field ;)

An example message on the SF bug could be:

  	BugDay_2005-10-06: TEST ADDED / SUCCESS

More information about the developers-list mailing list