It's all about the answers!

Ask a question
QuestionsTagsUsersBadges
Guidelines | FAQ
Follow this question
Question details

×42,862

question asked: Sep 28 '11, 2:57 a.m.
question was seen: 3,622 times
last updated: Sep 28 '11, 2:57 a.m.

Related questions

How to merge change sets by multiple users?

0
Wai Hung Lau (21●1●6●5) | asked Sep 28 '11, 2:57 a.m.
We find it difficult to have a practice for merging change sets from stream to stream by multiple users. The scenario is like below:

We have some fix from v1.0 DEV stream and only some of them are applicable to v2.0 stream. Using integration workspace, we found the following 5 change sets:
a - v1.0 features, do not merge
b - fix, created by User A
c - fix, created by User B
d - fix again of b, created by User A
e - fix, created by User C

Since the changes are made by different persons they are responsible for merging their own fix. So the question is:

1. Is it possible that User A merge b and d without merging c and e? How to coordindate the merge workflow?

2. We have set the delivery to require work item approval, but the corresponding work item of change set b is already approved during v1.0 delivery. Does that mean I can freely deliver b to v2.0 stream?

2 answers

Most liked answers ↑|Newest answers|Oldest answers

0
permanent link
Michael Valenta (3.7k●3) | answered Sep 28 '11, 8:56 a.m.
FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
In response to question 1, and assuming that all 5 change sets modify the same file and were applied in the given order to v1.0 then, at the current time, you would not be able to accept a change set into another stream without the change set it built upon. That is, if file X was modified in b, c and d, then you would not be able to accept change set d into another stream without accepting c and b as well. See work item https://jazz.net/jazz/resource/itemName/com.ibm.team.workitem.WorkItem/134456 for a request to decouple these accepts.

In response to question 2, I am not an expert in this area but, from the UI, it appears that the approvals are role based and not associated with an iteration. That would seem to imply that the general answer to your question is yes you can deliver the fix to v2.0 but specifically, you could use iteration based roles that prevented this.
0
permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k●3●30●35) | answered Sep 29 '11, 12:42 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
WRT question 2, role-based approvals don't help if the person is allowed
to deliver to both streams. I've submitted work item 178985 requesting
the ability to restrict a delivery approval to a particular stream.
Please verify that this is what you had in mind, and feel free to add a
comment indicating your interest/support.

Cheers,
Geoff

On 9/28/2011 9:38 AM, mvalenta wrote:
In response to question 1, and assuming that all 5 change sets modify
the same file and were applied in the given order to v1.0 then, at
the current time, you would not be able to accept a change set into
another stream without the change set it built upon. That is, if file
X was modified in b, c and d, then you would not be able to accept
change set d into another stream without accepting c and b as well.
See work item
https://jazz.net/jazz/resource/itemName/com.ibm.team.workitem.WorkItem/134456
for a request to decouple these accepts.

In response to question 2, I am not an expert in this area but, from
the UI, it appears that the approvals are role based and not
associated with an iteration. That would seem to imply that the
general answer to your question is yes you can deliver the fix to
v2.0 but specifically, you could use iteration based roles that
prevented this.

Your answer

Register or to post your answer.


Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.