no-QA states ambiguous

[Timo Jyrinki]

People are mixing up which of the following is the initial state for a silo, and which of them means it's ready for publishing but without QA team's involvement:

No QA Needed
Publish without QA

It has happened a couple of times that the lander had set a silo to "Publish without QA" while he meant that it will eventually be published without QA.

I'd suggest the following six (can be iterated further, please, my brain is not 100% functional here):

No QA Team Needed
Publish, No QA Team Needed
QA Team Required
Tested, Ready for QA
Publish, QA Granted
QA Failed

The idea is also to separate a bit that "no QA" != "no QA by the developer", ie QA team is what's meant. Having the "Publish" word explicitly there should help people not set it wrongly.

[Robert Bruce Park (robru)]

I agree they're unclear, but I'm not sure what would fix them.

In the spreadsheet the QA status was merged into the overall status, so you'd get a workflow like this:

(with QA) "Packages built." -> "Packages built. Testing pass. QA needs to sign off." -> "Packages built. Testing pass. QA signed off. You can publish."

(without QA) "Packages built." -> "Packages built. Testing pass. You can publish."

Bileto does ensure that the status is 'Packages built' when deciding what to display in the 'publishable' page but doesn't try to merge the build status & the QA status in this way.

I like your suggestions Timo, I wonder if they'd be more clear if none of them started with 'QA' (it's easier to scan if the first word of each status is unique). I propose that the QA states be:

(without QA) "No QA Team Needed" -> "Please Publish, No QA Team Needed"

(with QA) "Eventually Needs QA Team" -> "Tests Pass, Ready for QA Team" -> "Please Publish, QA Team Approved"

Let me know what you guys think, and also I subscribed jibel to this bug since these changes will totally break his qa bot.

[Timo Jyrinki (timo-jyrinki)]

Than you for brain work. Yours are better, I tried to keep them short a bit too much.

[Robert Bruce Park (robru)]

Another thought, what if adopting something more similar to the launchpad MP status field?

(with QA) "Work in Progress" -> "Approved to publish"

(without QA) "Work in Progress" -> "Needs QA" -> "Approved to publish"

Any thoughts? I'd like to hear from jibel on this as well.

[Robert Bruce Park (robru)]

I think we should revisit this & re-discuss at bug 1483635