View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0026807 | Open CASCADE | OCCT:Documentation | public | 2015-10-24 14:08 | 2016-09-10 10:18 |
| Reporter | kgv | Assigned To | bugmaster | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | integration request | ||
| Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Target Version | 7.0.0 | Fixed in Version | 7.0.0 | ||
| Summary | 0026807: Documentation - describe dropping of Visual3d and UserDraw within porting notes | ||||
| Description | Several extra changes in Visualization should be described in Porting Notes. | ||||
| Steps To Reproduce | N/A | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Test case number | |||||
| related to | 0027020 | closed | bugmaster | Open CASCADE | Documentation -- proof-read upgrade guide |
| related to | 0027855 | closed | bugmaster | Open CASCADE | Coding rules - mark Local Context creation in AIS_InteractiveContext with Standard_DEPRECATED |
| child of | 0024776 | closed | kgv | Open CASCADE | Visualization - inherit OpenGl_View from Graphic3d_CView |
| child of | 0026734 | closed | bugmaster | Open CASCADE | Visualization, TKOpenGl - drop outdated UserDraw interfaces |
| child of | 0025789 | closed | bugmaster | Open CASCADE | Visualization - get rid of obsolete 2d layers implementation |
|
|
Branch CR26807 has been created by kgv. SHA-1: 00beda1c4d856fbc8f9a6814f65427d54a94fd47 Detailed log of new commits: Author: kgv Date: Sat Oct 24 14:09:41 2015 +0300 0026807: Documentation - describe dropping of Visual3d and UserDraw within porting notes |
|
|
Patch is ready for review. |
|
|
Branch CR26807 reviewed without remarks, please test the generated HTML documentation ("Upgrade from older OCCT versions" page). |
|
|
Branch CR26807 has been updated by ysn. SHA-1: 1f5200073a016997d167b6857580e512c759e50a Detailed log of new commits: Author: ysn Date: Tue Nov 3 18:11:29 2015 +0300 New developer guide update.md thoroughly checked and formatted. |
|
|
It seem that the bug was set to verified without review. Please, integrate the recent version. |
|
|
Dear ysn, please use only statuses "feedback" and "reviewed" when addressing bugmaster - others will be ignored. |
|
|
> It seem that the bug was set to verified without review. > Please, integrate the recent version. your patch modifies entire document, not only recently added chapters - thus it would be better to put modifications within dedicated issue. |
|
|
I have not seen this document before, so obviously it was necessary to check the entire document. Let's not complicate things. |
|
|
Dear ysn, > Let's not complicate things. this does not matter when you have seen the document first time - there are coding rules and defined bug management workflow which should be followed. In particular: - No changes should be done in scope of bug after its integration into master (e.g. after switching to "verified" state). - Patch should not contain changes unrelated to description (e.g. reformatting entire document when bug description points to only specific part of it). Both issues should be normally processed by registering a new issue and linking to existing ones to keep relations. |
|
|
If so, what patch has added update.md in the source and why it was not submitted to me for review? |
|
|
> If so, what patch has added update.md in the source please spend some time learning git. > why it was not submitted to me for review? because these changes have been integrated in scope of technical bugs / fixes. |
|
|
> because these changes have been integrated in scope of technical bugs / fixes. Why? There are coding rules and defined bug management workflow, which should be followed. |
|
|
> Why? There are coding rules and defined bug management workflow, which should be followed. because there no such rules at all - as far as I can see there no updates from you in OCCT contribution workflow document. And there is no technical tool to control its compliance (yet). |
|
|
My updates in OCCT contribution workflow document are being reviewed, but this case is not related to them anyhow. You should have sent the initial version of that document to me for the same reason as you have submitted to me this bug. You have not done that. So for me the initial version of this document is here. |
|
|
> You should have sent the initial version of that document to me I CAN NOT send you initial version of this document, because I have not created it - see git log. > for the same reason as you have submitted to me this bug. this particular patch has been sent for review to the technical person (san) because it contains technical details for revision. The patch has been then passed to integration without your revision because neither san nor bumaster are aware of: > My updates in OCCT contribution workflow document are being reviewed, > but this case is not related to them anyhow. How could you expect any developer to follow rules which nobody is aware of? |
|
|
>How could you expect any developer to follow rules which nobody is aware of? Integration of this file into source makes it viewable on dev portal accessed by the customers. The proofreading of documentation delivered from OCC to Customers is our Company policy - what other rules do you need? >this particular patch has been sent for review to the technical person (san) because it contains technical details for revision. and it was also assigned to me (obviously, to let me know about this document). 2015-10-24 14:08 kgv Assigned To => ysn |
|
|
> Integration of this file into source makes it viewable on dev portal accessed by the customers. this is indirect relationship. I would say that ANY commit in OCCT git will be available to users and customers through gitweb web-site. Would you suggest do not use git at all and require premoderation for any patch? > and it was also assigned to me (obviously, to let me know about this document). > 2015-10-24 14:08 kgv Assigned To => ysn please spend some time learning Mantis - there is no option to assign bug to several persons at once! As soon, as bug has been assigned to a specific person - it is awaiting action only from this person. |
|
|
> Would you suggest do not use git at all and require premoderation for any patch? Use common sense. Integration of a new document requires proofreading. >there is no option to assign bug to several persons at once! 2015-10-24 14:08 kgv Assigned To => ysn I marked this bug as something TO BE DONE. |
|
|
The proof-reading changes made by Yury are now integrated as separate issue, 0027020; please switch the current issue to Verified |
|
|
Branch CR26807 has been deleted by kgv. SHA-1: 1f5200073a016997d167b6857580e512c759e50a |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-10-24 14:08 | kgv | New Issue | |
| 2015-10-24 14:08 | kgv | Assigned To | => ysn |
| 2015-10-24 14:08 | kgv | Assigned To | ysn => kgv |
| 2015-10-24 14:08 | kgv | Status | new => assigned |
| 2015-10-24 14:10 | git | Note Added: 0047414 | |
| 2015-10-24 14:10 | kgv | Note Added: 0047415 | |
| 2015-10-24 14:10 | kgv | Assigned To | kgv => san |
| 2015-10-24 14:10 | kgv | Status | assigned => resolved |
| 2015-10-24 14:11 | kgv | Relationship added | child of 0024776 |
| 2015-10-24 14:12 | kgv | Relationship added | child of 0026734 |
| 2015-10-24 14:12 | kgv | Relationship added | child of 0025789 |
| 2015-10-27 20:05 |
|
Note Added: 0047503 | |
| 2015-10-27 20:05 |
|
Assigned To | san => bugmaster |
| 2015-10-27 20:05 |
|
Status | resolved => reviewed |
| 2015-10-30 16:00 | bugmaster | Changeset attached | => occt master d3839d74 |
| 2015-10-30 16:00 | bugmaster | Status | reviewed => verified |
| 2015-10-30 16:00 | bugmaster | Resolution | open => fixed |
| 2015-11-03 18:11 | git | Note Added: 0047773 | |
| 2015-11-03 18:13 |
|
Assigned To | bugmaster => kgv |
| 2015-11-03 18:23 |
|
Assigned To | kgv => bugmaster |
| 2015-11-03 18:25 |
|
Note Added: 0047774 | |
| 2015-11-03 18:25 |
|
Status | verified => assigned |
| 2015-11-03 18:41 | kgv | Note Added: 0047775 | |
| 2015-11-03 18:41 | kgv | Status | assigned => feedback |
| 2015-11-03 18:43 | kgv | Note Added: 0047776 | |
| 2015-11-05 10:51 |
|
Note Added: 0047790 | |
| 2015-11-05 10:58 | kgv | Note Added: 0047791 | |
| 2015-11-05 10:58 | kgv | Note Edited: 0047791 | |
| 2015-11-05 12:24 |
|
Note Added: 0047805 | |
| 2015-11-05 12:25 |
|
Note Edited: 0047805 | |
| 2015-11-05 12:31 | kgv | Note Added: 0047807 | |
| 2015-11-05 12:34 |
|
Note Added: 0047808 | |
| 2015-11-05 12:44 | kgv | Note Added: 0047809 | |
| 2015-11-05 12:48 | kgv | Note Edited: 0047809 | |
| 2015-11-05 12:49 | kgv | Note Edited: 0047809 | |
| 2015-11-05 12:55 |
|
Note Added: 0047810 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:08 | kgv | Note Added: 0047811 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:09 | kgv | Note Edited: 0047811 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:09 | kgv | Note Edited: 0047811 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:11 | kgv | Note Edited: 0047811 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:11 | kgv | Note Edited: 0047811 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:33 |
|
Note Added: 0047817 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:39 | kgv | Note Added: 0047818 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:40 | kgv | Note Edited: 0047818 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:40 | kgv | Note Edited: 0047818 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:41 | kgv | Note Edited: 0047818 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:41 | kgv | Note Edited: 0047818 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:41 | kgv | Note Edited: 0047818 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:42 | kgv | Note Edited: 0047807 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:42 | kgv | Note Edited: 0047807 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:50 |
|
Note Added: 0047819 | |
| 2015-11-05 13:52 |
|
Note Edited: 0047819 | |
| 2015-12-21 11:15 |
|
Relationship added | related to 0027020 |
| 2015-12-21 11:34 |
|
Note Added: 0049346 | |
| 2015-12-21 12:13 | bugmaster | Status | feedback => tested |
| 2015-12-21 12:13 | bugmaster | Status | tested => verified |
| 2016-04-17 14:26 | git | Note Added: 0053170 | |
| 2016-04-20 15:42 |
|
Fixed in Version | => 7.0.0 |
| 2016-04-20 15:51 |
|
Status | verified => closed |
| 2016-09-10 10:18 | kgv | Relationship added | related to 0027855 |
