Archived issue #0026425
Update of OCCT contribution workflow
Description
Contribution workflow policy needs to be revised to formalize the requirements to notes made in Bugtracker and used for preparation of Release Notes.
Steps to reproduce
NA
Public activity
7 archived notes
Participants are labeled by their role within this record.
Branch [archived branch] has been created by Author.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Author
Date: Tue Jul 14 15:54:14 2015 +0300
Requirements to the release documentation described in more details.
Added some suggestions concerning the workflow.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Author
Date: Tue Jul 14 15:54:14 2015 +0300
Requirements to the release documentation described in more details.
Added some suggestions concerning the workflow.
Please, check the modifications.
I think that adding even more examples would make the chapter to long.
I also suggest renaming "Additional information and documentation updates" field of Mantis bugtracker into short "Documentation". "additional" has a taste of optionality.
I think that adding even more examples would make the chapter to long.
I also suggest renaming "Additional information and documentation updates" field of Mantis bugtracker into short "Documentation". "additional" has a taste of optionality.
Please correct a few points:
- do not use XXX's in the documentation (to avoid confusion with X rating). Use realistic names instead (either real or fake).
- do not refer to Documentation Engineer -- this is our internal position, not visible from outside. As well, we have no possibility to add reviewers; current workflow assumes only one reviewer. This is general problem, not related to documentation only; we shall think more on it.
- technical description of the changes made should be put first of all in the Git commit message, thus it should not be necessary to copy it to Mantis field. I suggest to take into account this and move relevant requirements and examples to the place where Git commits are described.
- I suppose that documentation field in Mantis should be used to add more information to description of change found in commit:
a) Details on effect of the change (benefits, possible problems etc.)
b) Porting notes
- do not use XXX's in the documentation (to avoid confusion with X rating). Use realistic names instead (either real or fake).
- do not refer to Documentation Engineer -- this is our internal position, not visible from outside. As well, we have no possibility to add reviewers; current workflow assumes only one reviewer. This is general problem, not related to documentation only; we shall think more on it.
- technical description of the changes made should be put first of all in the Git commit message, thus it should not be necessary to copy it to Mantis field. I suggest to take into account this and move relevant requirements and examples to the place where Git commits are described.
- I suppose that documentation field in Mantis should be used to add more information to description of change found in commit:
a) Details on effect of the change (benefits, possible problems etc.)
b) Porting notes
Branch [archived branch] has been created by Author.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Author
Date: Thu Oct 22 10:08:41 2015 +0300
Workflow rewritten according to the remarks.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Author
Date: Thu Oct 22 10:08:41 2015 +0300
Workflow rewritten according to the remarks.
Reviewed, to be integrated with #0024514
Branch [archived branch] has been deleted by Participant.
[revision removed]
[revision removed]
Branch [archived branch] has been deleted by Participant.
[revision removed]
[revision removed]
Related records