Ubuntu
unity package

Bug #1154176
Comment #23

Comment 23 for bug 1154176

Revision history for this message

Manuel de la Peña (mandel) wrote on 2013-03-21:

#23

> Example of why we need a clear story and status on it:
> Just saw that lp:~mandel/unity/error-preview was added to this bug. So it means:
> - I don't know if the code is ready or not and tested against the 100scopes branches.
> - we know have 3 branches instead of the 1 we had in the beginning. 2 being on the same component.

The reason to have two different branches against unity is to improve the quality of the reviews. As you can see lp:~mandel/unity/generic-payment-preview is a dependency of lp:~mandel/unity/error-preview . The reason for this course of action is to provide smaller code diff so that reviewers can focus better. I understand that the optimum thing to do is just have a single merge so that can be easily revert. I recommend to do the following, review lp:~mandel/unity/generic-payment-preview approve it when done and DO NOT MERGE it, then review lp:~mandel/unity/error-preview and merge it witch will bring the changes of the previous branch with it, that way we have a win win situation, better reviews and a single merge (once the later branch is merged lp will state that the previous one was too).

> -> Please tell us if:
> 1. all this was tested against the 100 scopes branches

We have create a ppa for the u1 QA team to test all this code with the 100 scopes code, we expect to have everything tested by EOD (time of the comment).

> 2. if everything is ready and we won't have another additional branch appearing in the next couple of days

Yes, all code present in those branches contains all the required changes.

> 3. merge both unity branches to just make one so that the in dash payment will just be one branch for reviewing per
> component and will make easier to revert if we don't have the +1 from sabfdl. (there is still the 4: update the description,
> see my previous comment)

I have answered at the top of the comment.

> Until 1, 2, 3 are cleared, I can't mix the 100scopes testing with this one, not knowing if the feature is ready and tested.

Understandable, we are going as fast as we can regarding the QA.

The reason to have two different branches against unity is to improve the quality of the reviews. As you can see lp:~mandel/unity/generic-payment-preview is a dependency of lp:~mandel/unity/error-preview . The reason for this course of action is to provide smaller code diff so that reviewers can focus better. I understand that the optimum thing to do is just have a single merge so that can be easily revert. I recommend to do the following, review lp:~mandel/unity/generic-payment-preview approve it when done and DO NOT MERGE it, then review  lp:~mandel/unity/error-preview  and merge it witch will bring the changes of the previous branch with it, that way we have a win win situation, better reviews and a single merge (once the later branch is merged lp will state that the previous one was too).