CWS: Good description is really important!
One of the problems we still see in our cws development model is wrong or completely missing
description of child workspaces. People reading cws-announce
mailing-list will actually read the description of your child workspace, so please keep it
informative and fill it at all!
Very good example is kendy
contains full description of the work that will be in his child workspace. It can even attract
people to test it and thus help kendy with its debugging!
Not that bad (but could be better) example is child workspace swqbf39
Its description references issues being fixed ("fixes for issue i51733 and i52225") in this
cws. This is redundant information, because these issues will surely be assigned to this child
workspace and you still do not know what this cws is all about and have to open IZ and read the
summary of both issues. But it at least contains some description.
The very bad example is hsqldb6
is a really small child workspace (already integrated, BTW) and its description is
empty. I understand that it was quick cws, but it should have non-empty description!
All child workspaces were chosen randomly. The only exception being
because I took inspiration from its description (but I believe
there are other good examples as well). I know that the chosen child workspaces are not very good
candidates, because new feature developed in
surely needs better
description than small bugfix cws
, but think about the principles instead of