| b.liu | e958203 | 2025-04-17 19:18:16 +0800 | [diff] [blame] | 1 | OpenWrt as an open source software opens its development to the community by |
| 2 | having a publicly browseable subversion repository. The Trac software which |
| 3 | comes along with a Subversion frontend, a Wiki and a ticket reporting system |
| 4 | is used as an interface between developers, users and contributors in order to |
| 5 | make the whole development process much easier and efficient. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | We make distinction between two kinds of people within the Trac system: |
| 8 | |
| 9 | \begin{itemize} |
| 10 | \item developers, able to report, close and fix tickets |
| 11 | \item reporters, able to add a comment, patch, or request ticket status |
| 12 | \end{itemize} |
| 13 | |
| 14 | \subsubsection{Opening a ticket} |
| 15 | |
| 16 | A reporter might want to open a ticket for the following reasons: |
| 17 | |
| 18 | \begin{itemize} |
| 19 | \item a bug affects a specific hardware and/or software and needs to be fixed |
| 20 | \item a specific software package would be seen as part of the official OpenWrt repository |
| 21 | \item a feature should be added or removed from OpenWrt |
| 22 | \end{itemize} |
| 23 | |
| 24 | Regarding the kind of ticket that is open, a patch is welcome in those cases: |
| 25 | |
| 26 | \begin{itemize} |
| 27 | \item new package to be included in OpenWrt |
| 28 | \item fix for a bug that works for the reporter and has no known side effect |
| 29 | \item new features that can be added by modifying existing OpenWrt files |
| 30 | \end{itemize} |
| 31 | |
| 32 | Once the ticket is open, a developer will take care of it, if so, the ticket is marked |
| 33 | as "accepted" with the developer name. You can add comments at any time to the ticket, |
| 34 | even when it is closed. |
| 35 | |
| 36 | \subsubsection{Closing a ticket} |
| 37 | |
| 38 | A ticket might be closed by a developer because: |
| 39 | |
| 40 | \begin{itemize} |
| 41 | \item the problem is already fixed (wontfix) |
| 42 | \item the problem described is not judged as valid, and comes along with an explanation why (invalid) |
| 43 | \item the developers know that this bug will be fixed upstream (wontfix) |
| 44 | \item the problem is very similar to something that has already been reported (duplicate) |
| 45 | \item the problem cannot be reproduced by the developers (worksforme) |
| 46 | \end{itemize} |
| 47 | |
| 48 | At the same time, the reporter may want to get the ticket closed since he is not |
| 49 | longer able to trigger the bug, or found it invalid by himself. |
| 50 | |
| 51 | When a ticket is closed by a developer and marked as "fixed", the comment contains |
| 52 | the subversion changeset which corrects the bug. |