[Gluster-devel] Unnecessary bugs entered in BZ, ...

[Anders Blomdell]

On 2014-07-17 18:10, Kaushal M wrote:
> "Bugs"/"bug" in the documents are not really what you think they mean.
> 
> We use bugzilla to track glusterfs development. It is used for track
> defects (bugs) in the software, enhancements and new features. What we
> really mean by a patch needs a bug id is that we need it to have an
> entry on bugzilla, so that it's lifecycle can be tracked correctly. So
> bug just means bugzilla entry. You have bug "bugs", enhancement
> "bugs", feature request "bugs" and so on.
> 
> tl;dr:  "bug" == bugzilla entry.
OK. would be nice to have a link back to the bugzilla from gerrit by the way,
cut and paste of the bug number is somewhat error-prone :-(


> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Anders Blomdell
> <anders.blomdell at control.lth.se> wrote:
>> On 2014-07-17 15:44, Kaushal M wrote:
>>> I don't understand your confusion, but maybe these docs need to be reworded.
>> Not confused, just observed that some of my patches regarding development
>> workflow does not need to show up as bugs for gluster (at least not until
>> somebody has verified that they could be useful to somebody else but me).
>>
>>> What both of these want to say is that for a patch to be merged into
>>> glusterfs, it needs to be associated with a bug-id. This association
>>> is done by adding a 'BUG: <id>' line in the commit message. If you
>>> haven't manually added a bug-id in the commit message, the rfc.sh
>>> script will prompt you to enter one and add it to the commit-message.
>>> But, it is possible ignore this prompt and submit a patch for review.
>>> A patch submitted for review in this manner will only be reviewed. It
>>> will not be merged.
>>>
>>> The simplified workflow document doesn't mention this as it was
>>> targeted at new developers, and I felt having this details was TMI for
>>> them. But now when I rethink it, it's the seasoned developers who are
>>> beginning to contribute to gluster, who are more likely to use that
>> s/seasoned developers/ignorant old fools/g :-)
>>
>>> doc.
>>>
>>> ~kaushal
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Anders Blomdell
>>> <anders.blomdell at control.lth.se> wrote:
>>>> ...and I'm sorry about that, the following documents are somewhat contradictory:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Simplified_dev_workflow
>>>>
>>>> The script will ask you to enter a bugzilla bug id. Every
>>>> change submitted to GlusterFS needs a bugzilla entry to be
>>>> accepted. If you do not already have a bug id, file a new
>>>> bug at Red Hat Bugzilla. If the patch is submitted for review,
>>>> the rfc.sh script will return the gerrit url for the review request.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> www.gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Development_Work_Flow
>>>>
>>>> Prompt for a Bug Id for each commit (if it was not already provded) and
>>>> include it as a "BUG:" tag in the commit log. You can just hit <enter> at
>>>> this prompt if your submission is purely for review purposes.

/Anders


-- 
Anders Blomdell                  Email: anders.blomdell at control.lth.se
Department of Automatic Control
Lund University                  Phone:    +46 46 222 4625
P.O. Box 118                     Fax:      +46 46 138118
SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden