390 lines
16 KiB
Plaintext
390 lines
16 KiB
Plaintext
|
================
|
||
|
Triaging tickets
|
||
|
================
|
||
|
|
||
|
Django uses Trac_ for managing our progress, and Trac is a community-tended
|
||
|
garden of the bugs people have found and the features people would like to see
|
||
|
added. As in any garden, sometimes there are weeds to be pulled and sometimes
|
||
|
there are flowers and vegetables that need picking. We need your help to sort
|
||
|
out one from the other, and in the end we all benefit together.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Like all gardens, we can aspire to perfection but in reality there's no such
|
||
|
thing. Even in the most pristine garden there are still snails and insects.
|
||
|
In a community garden there are also helpful people who--with the best of
|
||
|
intentions--fertilize the weeds and poison the roses. It's the job of the
|
||
|
community as a whole to self-manage, keep the problems to a minimum, and
|
||
|
educate those coming into the community so that they can become valuable
|
||
|
contributing members.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Similarly, while we aim for Trac to be a perfect representation of the state
|
||
|
of Django's progress, we acknowledge that this simply will not happen. By
|
||
|
distributing the load of Trac maintenance to the community, we accept that
|
||
|
there will be mistakes. Trac is "mostly accurate", and we give allowances for
|
||
|
the fact that sometimes it will be wrong. That's okay. We're perfectionists
|
||
|
with deadlines.
|
||
|
|
||
|
We rely on the community to keep participating, keep tickets as accurate as
|
||
|
possible, and raise issues for discussion on our mailing lists when there is
|
||
|
confusion or disagreement.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Django is a community project, and every contribution helps. We can't do this
|
||
|
without YOU!
|
||
|
|
||
|
Triage workflow
|
||
|
---------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
Unfortunately, not all bug reports and feature requests in the ticket tracker
|
||
|
provide all the :doc:`required details<bugs-and-features>`. A number of
|
||
|
tickets have patches, but those patches don't meet all the requirements of a
|
||
|
:ref:`good patch<patch-style>`.
|
||
|
|
||
|
One way to help out is to *triage* tickets that have been created by other
|
||
|
users. The core team--as well as many community members--work on this
|
||
|
regularly, but more help is always appreciated.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Most of the workflow is based around the concept of a ticket's
|
||
|
:ref:`triage stages <triage-stages>`. Each stage describes where in its
|
||
|
lifetime a given ticket is at any time. Along with a handful of flags, this
|
||
|
attribute easily tells us what and who each ticket is waiting on.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Since a picture is worth a thousand words, let's start there:
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. image:: /internals/_images/djangotickets.png
|
||
|
:height: 451
|
||
|
:width: 590
|
||
|
:alt: Django's ticket triage workflow
|
||
|
|
||
|
We've got two roles in this diagram:
|
||
|
|
||
|
* :doc:`Committers</internals/committers>` (also called core developers):
|
||
|
people with commit access who are responsible for making the big
|
||
|
decisions, writing large portions of the code and integrating the
|
||
|
contributions of the community.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Ticket triagers: anyone in the Django community who chooses to
|
||
|
become involved in Django's development process. Our Trac installation
|
||
|
is intentionally left open to the public, and anyone can triage tickets.
|
||
|
Django is a community project, and we encourage :ref:`triage by the
|
||
|
community<how-can-i-help-with-triaging>`.
|
||
|
|
||
|
By way of example, here we see the lifecycle of an average ticket:
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Alice creates a ticket, and uploads an incomplete patch (no tests, incorrect
|
||
|
implementation).
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Bob reviews the patch, marks it "Accepted", "needs tests", and "patch needs
|
||
|
improvement", and leaves a comment telling Alice how the patch could be
|
||
|
improved.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Alice updates the patch, adding tests (but not changing the
|
||
|
implementation). She removes the two flags.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Charlie reviews the patch and resets the "patch needs improvement" flag with
|
||
|
another comment about improving the implementation.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Alice updates the patch, fixing the implementation. She removes the "patch
|
||
|
needs improvement" flag.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Daisy reviews the patch, and marks it RFC.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Jacob, a core developer, reviews the RFC patch, applies it to his checkout,
|
||
|
and commits it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Some tickets require much less feedback than this, but then again some tickets
|
||
|
require much much more.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. _triage-stages:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Triage stages
|
||
|
-------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
Below we describe in more detail the various stages that a ticket may flow
|
||
|
through during its lifetime.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Unreviewed
|
||
|
~~~~~~~~~~
|
||
|
|
||
|
The ticket has not been reviewed by anyone who felt qualified to make a
|
||
|
judgment about whether the ticket contained a valid issue, a viable feature,
|
||
|
or ought to be closed for any of the various reasons.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Accepted
|
||
|
~~~~~~~~
|
||
|
|
||
|
The big grey area! The absolute meaning of "accepted" is that the issue
|
||
|
described in the ticket is valid and is in some stage of being worked on.
|
||
|
Beyond that there are several considerations:
|
||
|
|
||
|
* **Accepted + No Flags**
|
||
|
|
||
|
The ticket is valid, but no one has submitted a patch for it yet. Often this
|
||
|
means you could safely start writing a patch for it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* **Accepted + Has Patch**
|
||
|
|
||
|
The ticket is waiting for people to review the supplied patch. This means
|
||
|
downloading the patch and trying it out, verifying that it contains tests
|
||
|
and docs, running the test suite with the included patch, and leaving
|
||
|
feedback on the ticket.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* **Accepted + Has Patch + (any other flag)**
|
||
|
|
||
|
This means the ticket has been reviewed, and has been found to need further
|
||
|
work. "Needs tests" and "Needs documentation" are self-explanatory. "Patch
|
||
|
needs improvement" will generally be accompanied by a comment on the ticket
|
||
|
explaining what is needed to improve the code.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Design Decision Needed
|
||
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||
|
|
||
|
This stage is for issues which may be contentious, may be backwards
|
||
|
incompatible, or otherwise involve high-level design decisions. These issues
|
||
|
should be discussed either in the ticket comments or on `django-developers`_.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If a ticket has been marked as "DDN", decisions are generally eventually
|
||
|
made by the core committers, however that is not a requirement. See the
|
||
|
:ref:`New contributors' FAQ<new-contributors-faq>` for "My ticket has been in
|
||
|
DDN forever! What should I do?"
|
||
|
|
||
|
This stage will generally only be used for feature
|
||
|
requests. It can also be used for issues that *might* be bugs, depending on
|
||
|
opinion or interpretation. Obvious bugs (such as crashes, incorrect query
|
||
|
results, or non-compliance with a standard) skip this stage and move straight
|
||
|
to "Accepted".
|
||
|
|
||
|
Ready For Checkin
|
||
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||
|
|
||
|
The ticket was reviewed by any member of the community other than the person
|
||
|
who supplied the patch and found to meet all the requirements for a
|
||
|
commit-ready patch. A core committer now needs to give the patch a final
|
||
|
review prior to being committed. See the
|
||
|
:ref:`New contributors' FAQ<new-contributors-faq>` for "My ticket has been in
|
||
|
RFC forever! What should I do?"
|
||
|
|
||
|
Someday/Maybe
|
||
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||
|
|
||
|
Generally only used for vague/high-level features or design ideas. These
|
||
|
tickets are uncommon and overall less useful since they don't describe
|
||
|
concrete actionable issues. They are enhancement requests that we might
|
||
|
consider adding someday to the framework if an excellent patch is submitted.
|
||
|
These tickets are not a high priority.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Fixed on a branch
|
||
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||
|
|
||
|
Used to indicate that a ticket is resolved as part of a major body of work
|
||
|
that will eventually be merged to trunk. Tickets in this stage generally
|
||
|
don't need further work. This may happen in the case of major
|
||
|
features/refactors in each release cycle, or as part of the annual Google
|
||
|
Summer of Code efforts.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Other triage attributes
|
||
|
-----------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
A number of flags, appearing as checkboxes in Trac, can be set on a ticket:
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Has patch
|
||
|
This means the ticket has an associated
|
||
|
:doc:`patch<writing-code/submitting-patches>`. These will be reviewed
|
||
|
to see if the patch is "good".
|
||
|
* Needs documentation:
|
||
|
This flag is used for tickets with patches that need associated
|
||
|
documentation. Complete documentation of features is a prerequisite
|
||
|
before we can check them into the codebase.
|
||
|
* Needs tests
|
||
|
This flags the patch as needing associated unit tests. Again, this
|
||
|
is a required part of a valid patch.
|
||
|
* Patch needs improvement
|
||
|
This flag means that although the ticket *has* a patch, it's not quite
|
||
|
ready for checkin. This could mean the patch no longer applies
|
||
|
cleanly, there is a flaw in the implementation, or that the code
|
||
|
doesn't meet our standards."
|
||
|
* Easy pickings
|
||
|
Tickets that would require small, easy, patches.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Tickets should be categorized by *type* between:
|
||
|
|
||
|
* New Feature
|
||
|
For adding something new.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Bug
|
||
|
For when an existing thing is broken or not behaving as expected.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Cleanup/optimization
|
||
|
For when nothing is broken but something could be made cleaner,
|
||
|
better, faster, stronger.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Tickets should also be classified into *components* indicating which area of
|
||
|
the Django codebase they belong to. This makes tickets better organized and
|
||
|
easier to find.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The *severity* attribute is used to identify blockers, that is, issues which
|
||
|
should get fixed before releasing the next version of Django. Typically those
|
||
|
issues are bugs causing regressions from earlier versions or potentially
|
||
|
causing severe data losses. This attribute is quite rarely used and the vast
|
||
|
majority of tickets have a severity of "Normal".
|
||
|
|
||
|
Finally, it is possible to use the *version* attribute to indicate in which
|
||
|
version the reported bug was identified.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. _closing-tickets:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Closing Tickets
|
||
|
---------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
When a ticket has completed its useful lifecycle, it's time for it to be
|
||
|
closed. Closing a ticket is a big responsibility, though. You have to be sure
|
||
|
that the issue is really resolved, and you need to keep in mind that the
|
||
|
reporter of the ticket may not be happy to have their ticket closed (unless
|
||
|
it's fixed, of course). If you're not certain about closing a ticket, just
|
||
|
leave a comment with your thoughts instead.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you do close a ticket, you should always make sure of the following:
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Be certain that the issue is resolved.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Leave a comment explaining the decision to close the ticket.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* If there is a way they can improve the ticket to reopen it, let them know.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* If the ticket is a duplicate, reference the original ticket. Also
|
||
|
cross-reference the closed ticket by living a comment in the original one
|
||
|
-- this allows to access more related information about the reported bug
|
||
|
or requested feature.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* **Be polite.** No one likes having their ticket closed. It can be
|
||
|
frustrating or even discouraging. The best way to avoid turning people
|
||
|
off from contributing to Django is to be polite and friendly and to offer
|
||
|
suggestions for how they could improve this ticket and other tickets in
|
||
|
the future.
|
||
|
|
||
|
A ticket can be resolved in a number of ways:
|
||
|
|
||
|
* fixed
|
||
|
Used by the core developers once a patch has been rolled into
|
||
|
Django and the issue is fixed.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* invalid
|
||
|
Used if the ticket is found to be incorrect. This means that the
|
||
|
issue in the ticket is actually the result of a user error, or
|
||
|
describes a problem with something other than Django, or isn't
|
||
|
a bug report or feature request at all (for example, some new users
|
||
|
submit support queries as tickets).
|
||
|
|
||
|
* wontfix
|
||
|
Used when a core developer decides that this request is not
|
||
|
appropriate for consideration in Django. This is usually chosen after
|
||
|
discussion in the `django-developers`_ mailing list. Feel free to
|
||
|
start or join in discussions of "wontfix" tickets on the
|
||
|
django-developers_ mailing list, but please do not reopen tickets
|
||
|
closed as "wontfix" by core developers.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* duplicate
|
||
|
Used when another ticket covers the same issue. By closing duplicate
|
||
|
tickets, we keep all the discussion in one place, which helps
|
||
|
everyone.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* worksforme
|
||
|
Used when the ticket doesn't contain enough detail to replicate
|
||
|
the original bug.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* needsinfo
|
||
|
Used when the ticket does not contain enough information to replicate
|
||
|
the reported issue but is potentially still valid. The ticket
|
||
|
should be reopened when more information is supplied.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you believe that the ticket was closed in error -- because you're
|
||
|
still having the issue, or it's popped up somewhere else, or the triagers have
|
||
|
made a mistake -- please reopen the ticket and provide further information.
|
||
|
Again, please do not reopen tickets that have been marked as "wontfix" by core
|
||
|
developers and bring the issue to django-developers_ instead.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. _how-can-i-help-with-triaging:
|
||
|
|
||
|
How can I help with triaging?
|
||
|
-----------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
Although the core developers make the big decisions in the ticket triage
|
||
|
process, there's a lot that general community members can do to help the
|
||
|
triage process. Really, **ANYONE** can help.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Start by `creating an account on Trac`_. If you have an account but have
|
||
|
forgotten your password, you can reset it using the `password reset page`_.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Then, you can help out by:
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Closing "Unreviewed" tickets as "invalid", "worksforme" or "duplicate."
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Promoting "Unreviewed" tickets to "Design decision needed" if a design
|
||
|
decision needs to be made, or "Accepted" in case of obvious bugs or
|
||
|
sensible, clearly defined, feature requests.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Correcting the "Needs tests", "Needs documentation", or "Has patch"
|
||
|
flags for tickets where they are incorrectly set.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Setting the "`Easy pickings`_" flag for tickets that are small and
|
||
|
relatively straightforward.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Checking that old tickets are still valid. If a ticket hasn't seen
|
||
|
any activity in a long time, it's possible that the problem has been
|
||
|
fixed but the ticket hasn't yet been closed.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Contacting the owners of tickets that have been claimed but have not
|
||
|
seen any recent activity. If the owner doesn't respond after a week
|
||
|
or so, remove the owner's claim on the ticket.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Identifying trends and themes in the tickets. If there a lot of bug
|
||
|
reports about a particular part of Django, it may indicate we should
|
||
|
consider refactoring that part of the code. If a trend is emerging,
|
||
|
you should raise it for discussion (referencing the relevant tickets)
|
||
|
on `django-developers`_.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Set the *type* of tickets that are still uncategorized.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Verify if patches submitted by other users are correct. If they do and
|
||
|
also contain appropriate documentation and tests then move them to the
|
||
|
"Ready for Checkin" stage. If they don't then leave a comment to explain
|
||
|
why and set the corresponding flags ("Patch needs improvement",
|
||
|
"Needs tests" etc.).
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. note::
|
||
|
|
||
|
The `Reports page`_ contains links to many useful Trac queries, including
|
||
|
several that are useful for triaging tickets and reviewing patches as
|
||
|
suggested above.
|
||
|
|
||
|
You can also find more :doc:`new-contributors`.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. _Reports page: http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Reports
|
||
|
|
||
|
However, we do ask the following of all general community members working in
|
||
|
the ticket database:
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Please **don't** close tickets as "wontfix." The core developers will
|
||
|
make the final determination of the fate of a ticket, usually after
|
||
|
consultation with the community.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Please **don't** promote your own tickets to "Ready for checkin". You
|
||
|
may mark other people's tickets which you've reviewed as "Ready for
|
||
|
checkin", but you should get at minimum one other community member to
|
||
|
review a patch that you submit.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Please **don't** reverse a decision that has been made by a core
|
||
|
developer. If you disagree with a decision that has been made,
|
||
|
please post a message to `django-developers`_.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* If you're unsure if you should be making a change, don't make the
|
||
|
change but instead leave a comment with your concerns on the ticket,
|
||
|
or post a message to `django-developers`_. It's okay to be unsure,
|
||
|
but your input is still valuable.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. _Trac: http://code.djangoproject.com/
|
||
|
.. _django-developers: http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers
|
||
|
.. _i18n branch: http://code.djangoproject.com/browser/django/branches/i18n
|
||
|
.. _`tags/releases`: http://code.djangoproject.com/browser/django/tags/releases
|
||
|
.. _`easy pickings`: http://code.djangoproject.com/query?status=!closed&easy=1
|
||
|
.. _`creating an account on Trac`: http://www.djangoproject.com/accounts/register/
|
||
|
.. _password reset page: http://www.djangoproject.com/accounts/password/reset/
|