| Version 2 (modified by peko, 17 years ago) (diff) |
|---|
Iteration page for M02_PRE2
Autogenerated - DO NOT EDIT!
Table of Contents
Overview
total effort: 80
milestone page: M02_PRE2
Planned Tasks
SCS_BACKUP_R1 - 0.5d - #1374 - (LOG)
Analyzing: Deyan (done : 35 min)
Review: 3.5 by todor. The analysis is good enough and gives all needed information what should be done in this revision. But didn't mention when the backup should be done. The LOG wasn't included, be more careful.
Design: deyan (done:10m)
Review: 3 by Pav. Added to the design that the current CD must be reviewed.
Implementation: Peko, Deyan 10m (done)
Testing:
Comments:
Analyzing: Pac (done 30m)
Review: 1 by Pav (done 5m). You have to fill the empty spaces.
Analyzing2: deyan (done:15m)
Review: 2 by Pap. What's written is good, but there are some more things included in the task (i.e. UNPLANED tasks management).
Analyzing3: deyan (30m)
Review: 3 by todor. The unplanned task weren't mentioned but they were taken care of. Too many time lost ina analizing one task three times.
Design: Pac(), deyan (done:15m)
Review: 3 by Pap.
Implementation: Pac(), deyan(done:30m)
Review: 3 by todor. There are typos in the statuses of the ticket system that need to be fixed.
Testing:
Comments:After 2008-10-19
Analyzing: deyan (done :45m), tested forum functionalities.
Review: 4 by todor. The analysis gives specific instructions and task requirements.
Design: deyan (done:1.5h) Researched for suitable rules.
Implementation: deyan (done:1h)
Review: 3.5 by todor. You must list the impediment in the Internal backlog. Some Example for FAQ would have been nice.
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pap - done(15m)
Review: Peko 3 - OK.
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Tanya - done - 25m
Design: Tanya - done - 3h
Implementation: Tanya - done - 1h
Review: 3.5 by Pap.
Testing:
Analysis: Tanya - done - 35m
Review: 2 by Pap. The utils don't need to be put in a separate module(they should be in the same module as properties). Did you mean "Shallow copy"? The overview is unclear to me.
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Analysis: Pav (done: 35m)
Review: 3.5 by Pap. It looks OK and gives clear enough requirements.
Design: Pav (done: 2h)
Review: 3 by Pap(8m). It's understandable, although I find it a bit hard to find the design for each requirement.
Implementation: Pav (done: 5h)
Review: 2 by Pap. It's not mentioned where the results are so I cannot review them.
Testing:
Comments:
Analyzing: deyan (done: 25 mins)
Review: 3 by todor. The overview seems unfinished. You must add one more requirement: give examples for good analysis (already added).
Design: deyan (done: 20m)
Review: 3.5 by Pap.
Implementation: deyan (done: 255m)
Review: 3.5 by todor. Thoroughly reviewing of the created standard for analysis. The document meets all requirements set in the design.
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Tanya - done - 45m
Review: 1 by Pap. Web pages are not business logic at all.
Analysis2: Tanya - done - 15m
Review: 3.5 by Pap. Good enough for this revision.
Design: Pav(done: 40m)
Implementation:
Testing:
Analysis: Peko - done - 30mins
Review: 3.5 by todor. Some missing things added (CPU usage).
Design: Peko
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pap -done (20m)
Review: Peko - 4 OK
Design: Pav (done: 20m)
Review: 2 by Pap. The file is log4j.properties. I don't think we need an Activator. This module may just embed felix.
Implementation:
Testing:
Analysis: Peko - 25mins
Review - 4 by Pap. It's fine.
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pav (done: 20m)
Review: 3.5 by todor. The analysis is ok, but it could be more specific.
Design: Pav (done: 20m)
Review: 3.5 by todor. The design is ok.
Implementation: Pav (done: 5h)
Review: 3.5 by todor. There was a missing link (I've added it), but overall the implementation is very good.
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: deyan (done: 30m)
Review: 3.5 by todor. Need to mention that this tasks includes also any kind of corrections and changes made in the wiki that doesn't belong to other tasks.
Design: deyan (done: 10m)
Review: 3.5 by Peko. 10m
Implementation: deyan (done: 30m)
Review: 3.5 by todor. The implementation meets the requirements set in the analysis and the design.
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Tanya - done - 30m
Review: 3.5 by Pap.
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Analysis: Pav (done:20m)
Review: 3.5p by deyan
Design: deyan (done 2h)
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: deyan (done:45m)
Review: 3.5 by Pav (done:10m)
Design: deyan (done:5m)
Review: 3 by Pav(done:10m) It has to be more detailed. Use bullets for better reading.
Implementation: deyan (done)
Review: 2 by todor. The structure of design does not satisfy the requirements for design, copy part of the implementation ideas there if it is necessary. In the implementation part of the task there is no link to the result of this task, which makes its reviewing hard. One of the task requirements (mail to the dev group) is not fulfilled.
Implementation2: deyan (done:30m)
Review: 3 by Pap. It's generally good but please change the link so that it uses domain names instead of IP addresses. Also 5/12 means nothing to me so please use more explanatory sentences.
Testing:
Comments:"Review: 2 by todor."Is this a review or a superreview? this design has already passed review, i am not refactoring it until it is clear.
Comment2: The implementation review supposes that both design and implementation must be reviewed in order to pass the task.
Analysis: someone !?!? (has not mentioned his name)
Design: Peko - done - 3h
Implementation: Peko - 19h - done
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: todor (done: 20m)
Review: 3.5 deyan (done: 10m)
Design: todor
Review: Peko - 4 - ok - 10mins
Implementation: todor
Review: 3 by Pav. It is good but too long in my opinion. It will be good to send some signature in the end with our logo and general info about the project(link to the about section or first page for example). Things only about the office should not be sent on mail.
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pav (done: 25m)
Review: 3.5 by Pap. It's clear enough. You forgot to include the log - Be more careful!
Design: Pav (done: 30m)
Review: 3.5 by Tanya 40m
Implementation: Pav (done: 3h)
Review: 3.5 by todor. Done detailed reviewing of the PLATFORM_INFRASTRUCTURE_OVERVIEW and included links. Overall the implementation is good.
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pav (done: 35m)
Review: 2 by Pap. I think that update to PLUGIN_EDITIONS_STRUCTURE should be included in the requirements.
Analysis 2: Pav (done: 10m)
Review: 3.5 by Pap
Design: Pap (done: 4h)
Review: 3.5 by Pav (done: 15m). Note that maven already has a goal for the assembly plug-in.
Implementation: Pap (done - 4d). Overtimed and still incomplete
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pap - done(25m)
Review: Peko - 2 - Its is generally OK, but not clear enough for people who have never discussed this. In my opinion things that need more clarity are: where are the extension points and how many they are, who are the extensions and which extension points do they belong to.
Analysis2: Pap - done(15m)
Review: 3.5 by Tanya OK
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Deyan (done: 3h)
Review: 3 by todor. There were some mistakes and problems in formating (now fixed). The quotes should be in the "Related" section, not in the overview.
Design: deyan (done)
Review: 4 by peko.
Implementation: deyan
Testing:
Comments:PLATFORM_STANDARDS_ANALYSIS Please give comments about where the quotes should be after reading this document. "Related - Here should be listed related tasks that might be useful. You should link previous revisions of this task. You may list useful external links too."
Analyzing: Deyan (done : 1.5h)
Review: 3 - Pac (The code from 'Implementation Idea' is not correct )
Design: Pac (done : 3h)
Implementation: Pac (2h)
Design Review: 4p by deyan
Super review: 2p by deyan after discussion turned out phases should be quite different.
Design2: deyan, kyli(done)
Implementation2: deyan, milo (done 2h) Implementation and design were done at the same time because of the inconvinience to test workflow at this time.
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pav (done: 25m)
Review: 3.5 by todor. Good analysis.
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Peko - done - 30mins
Review: 4 by Pap.
Super Review: 2 by Pav (done: 15m) We don't need groups.
Analysis-2: Peko - done - 15mins
Review: 3 by todor. It is ok now.
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis:
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Tanya - done - 35m
Review: 2 by Pap(15m). I don't understand how adding diagrams in PRO_LIB_CORE_TUTORIAL is related to this task. The overview is a bit messy. It is an unstructured version of the requirements. Describe the task better.
Analysis2: Tanya - done - 15m
Review: 3.5 by Pap(5m)
Design: Tanya
Implementation:
Testing:
Analysis: Pap - done(25m)
Review: Peko - 3.5 - FINE.
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: todor (done: 45m)
Review: 3p by deyan. No suggestions of what to research. Really hard design.
Design: deyan (done 2h)
Review: 3p by Pav
Implementation: kalin, deyan (done 1.5h)
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pap - done (30m)
Review: 2 by Tanya - 15m "There can be different bottom panels." is incorrect. There will be only one bottom panel providing extension points for bottom panel elements.
Analysis 2: Pap - done (7m)
Review 2: 3 by Pav
Design: Peko - done 20m
Review: 3.5 by Pap. The design is good enough.
Implementation: Peko - done 1h
Testing:
Analysis: Pav (done: 35m)
Review: 3 by Pap. The analysis is understandable but the explanations could be better.
Design: Peko - 100m - done
Implementation: Peko - 7h
Testing:
Comments:
Analyzing: Pap - done(35m)
Review: 3.5 by Tanya
Design: Tanya
Implementation:
Testing:
Analysis: deyan (done: 1h)
Review: 3.5 by todor. It would be better if the task requirements were in bullet structure.
Design: deyan (done:20m)
Review: 3.5 by Pap. It's OK.
Implementation: deyan (done:8h)
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pav (done: 20m)
Review: 3.5 by Pap. OK
Design: Pav (done: 30m)
Review: 4 by deyan. Excellent design.
Implementation: todor (done: 90m)
Implementation Review: 3.5 by Tanya 20min OK.
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis:
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: todor (done: 30m)
Review: 3 by Pav(done: 25m). We should also create new "order" field in the wbs python file and use it to sort the tasks
Design: Pav (done: 20m)
Review: 3.5 by todor. Could be more specific about integration between the sorting and the tickets.
Implementation: Pav, todor (done: 6h)
Review: 3.5 by Pap. The task was done good and when needed. No dependencies were added for the tickets due to 150% timeboxing.
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis:Pav
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: deyan (done : 45m)
Review: 4 by todor. The analysis cover all that must be done and gives excellent guidelines.
Design: Peko - done 40m
Implementation: Peko:5h, Deyan:1h - done
Review: 3.5 by Pav (done: 20m). A 'click here' links is not appropriate. It is better to see the path and name of the wiki page.
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pav (done: 25m)
Review: 3.5 by todor. Good analysis.
Design: Pav(done: 2h)
Review: 3.5 by Pap.
Implementation: Pav(done)
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pap - done(15m)
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: todor (done: 20m)
Review: 3.5 deyan (done: 5m)
Design: todor (done: 3h)
Implementation: todor (done: 20m)
Review: 3 by Pav. There were syntax errors corrected and links added.
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pap - done(30m)
Review: Peko - 3 OK. - 5mins - Overview should be more general. Task requirements should not overlap the overview part.
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pav(done: 30m)
Review: 3.5 by Pap
Design: Pav(done: 1h)
Review: 3 by Pap
Implementation: Pav(done: 5h)
Review: 3.5 by todor. The presented links give the needed information. Maybe we should combine the information from them in one wiki page.
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Peko - done - 35mins
Review: 4 by todor. Very good analysis, it gives detailed instructions.
Design: todor (done: 230m)
Implementation: todor (done: 80m). Some corrections made, and some new things added (created links).
Reivew: 4 by Peko. Very detailed explanation. Some things are even over-explained.
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pap - done(25m)
Reivew: Peko - 3.5p OK.
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: todor (done: 1h)
Review: 3p deyan. Requirements are not very clear to me - what exactly should the script be able to export.
Design: Peko - 1h - done
Review: 3.5 by todor. The design fulfills the task requirements.
Implementation: Peko - 100% - 5h
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pap - done (40m)
Review: 3.5 by todor. Good analysis.
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: deyan (done:40m)
Review: 3 by Pav (done: 15m) I can't understand why the next revisions and the log of the task are in the related section
Design: todor (done: 4h)
Review: 4 by Pav. It is good, cleared and detailed. Write how much time the design took.
Implementation: todor (done:3h)
Review: 3.5 by deyan (done:15m)
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pap - done(25m)
Review: 3.5 by todor. The analysis is good enough.
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pap - done(15m)
Review: 3.5 by Tanya - 15min
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Analysis:
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
- Analysis: Tanya - done - 1h
- Review: 3 by Pap. Include 'Links to the ..._STANDARDS_... things.' in the requirements.
- Review: 3 by Pap. Include 'Links to the ..._STANDARDS_... things.' in the requirements.
- Design: todor (done: 90m)
- Design review 3.5 by deyan. You may add more than one analysis, design and implementation as examples.
- Design review: 2 by tanya. For coding tasks: It is not a good idea to link the result. A better idea is to link the change set of the commit where this modifications are done.
- Implementation:
- Testing:
Analysis: Pap - done(20m)
Review: Peko - 2 - I do not understand the module part of the task requirements section. Either the module should provide an extension point for the scene model or should be an extension of the scene model. In my opinion both are possible scenarios. In addition to this, the module should be specified more. Is it a demo, a test, a minimal implementation of a the scene ?
Analysis2: Pap - done(25m)
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pap - done (20m)
Review: 3.5 by Tanya - 10m
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Analysis: todor (done: 1h)
Review: deyan 2p This revision should fix the document. The structure has hardly passed r0 so improvement is needed. Add columns Mouse left click, right click, middle click, scroll, drag. Add trigger column. Add column OS specific for notes of specific notes. The bahavior listed is not correct too!
Analysis refactoring: deyan (done:35m)
Design: deyan (done:20m)
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: todor (done: 30m)
Analysis Review: 3.5 Tanya 10m
Design: todor (done: 90m). The implementation and the design of this task are bound together and the reviewing will be done when the implementation is finished.
Implementation: todor (done: 150m)
Review: deyan 3.5p
Testing:
Comments:
Analyzing: Deyan (done : 15 mins)
Review: 3.5 by todor. The analysis is ok.
Design: deyan
Implementation: deyan (done 12h)
Review: 3 by todor. The task took more effort than estimated. The design wasn't reviewed when the implementation had begun. How much time took the designing.
Testing:
Comments:
Analysis: Pap - done(20m)
Review: 3 by todor. Fair enough.
Design: Peko - done - 30m
Review: 3 by Pap. It's not mentioned how will the page selector perform navigation.
Implementation: Peko - done - 30m
Testing:
Analysis:
Design:
Implementation:
Testing:
Comments:
Planned Tasks
All Related Tickets
- #12
- PLATFORM_INFRASTRUCTURE_OVERVIEW_R1
- #24
- PLATFORM_STANDARDS_ANALYSIS_R1
- #47
- PLATFORM_NFR_USABILITY_R0
- #62
- PLATFORM_NFR_LICENSE_R0
- #67
- PLATFORM_DEPLOYMENT_BUILD_ANT_R0
- #96
- PLUGIN_DECOMPOSITION_R1
- #133
- PRO_LIB_CORE_CODE_TEMPLATES_R0
- #1191
- S2S_WEB_COMMONS_R0
- #1279
- S2S_CORE_DEPLOYMENT_R0
- #1283
- S2S_CORE_COMMONS_R0
- #1374
- SCS_BACKUP_R1
- #1385
- SCS_INFORMATION_R0
- #1391
- SCS_REPO_MAINTENANCE_R1
- #1405
- SCS_ISSUE_TRACKER_SETUP_R1
- #1408
- SCS_ISSUE_TRACKER_MAINTENANCE_R1
- #1424
- SCS_WIKI_MAINTENANCE_R1
- #1436
- SCS_PROJECT_BLOG_R1
- #1448
- SCS_FORUM_R1
- #1460
- SCS_MAIL_LIST_R1
- #1472
- SCS_TEST_TRACKING_SETUP_R1
- #1475
- SCS_TEST_TRACKING_MAINTENANCE_R1
- #1515
- SCHEDULE_WBS_TASKS_R1
- #1517
- SCHEDULE_WBS_DEPENDENCIES_R1
- #1519
- SCHEDULE_WBS_EXPORTS_R1
- #1521
- SCHEDULE_WBS_TIME_ALLOC_R1
- #1523
- SCHEDULE_MAINTENANCE_R1
- #1553
- INTERNAL_BACKLOG_MAINTENANCE_R1
- #1565
- PROCESS_R1
- #1579
- UNPLANNED_BOOK_WINDOW_R0
- #1821
- test
