[Gluster-devel] Proposal to change Gerrit -> Bugzilla updates

Niels de Vos ndevos at redhat.com
Tue Sep 11 10:30:52 UTC 2018

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:38:04AM -0400, Shyam Ranganathan wrote:
> On 09/10/2018 08:37 AM, Nigel Babu wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> > 
> > We now have review.gluster.org <http://review.gluster.org> as an
> > external tracker on Bugzilla. Our current automation when there is a
> > bugzilla attached to a patch is as follows:
> > 
> > 1. When a new patchset has "Fixes: bz#1234" or "Updates: bz#1234", we
> > will post a comment to the bug with a link to the patch and change the
> > status to POST. 2. When the patchset is merged, if the commit said
> > "Fixes", we move the status to MODIFIED.
> > 
> > I'd like to propose the following improvements:
> > 1. Add the Gerrit URL as an external tracker to the bug.
> My assumption here is that for each patch that mentions a BZ, an
> additional tracker would be added to the tracker list, right?
> Further assumption (as I have not used trackers before) is that this
> would reduce noise as comments in the bug itself, right?
> In the past we have reduced noise by not commenting on the bug (or
> github issue) every time the patch changes, so we get 2 comments per
> patch currently, with the above change we would just get one and that
> too as a terse external reference (see [1], based on my test/understanding).

This has my preference. The information of a patch being posted has
little relevance for a bug reporter. The bug moving to POST should be an
indication that work is being done. The link to the patch is available
so the status can be tracked pretty easily if needed.

> What we would lose is the commit details when the patch is merged in the
> BZ, as far as I can tell based on the changes below. These are useful
> and would like these to be retained in case they are not.

I agree with this. Specially once a patch has been merged, a comment
with the commit hash, subject and message is extremely helpful.

> > 2. When a patch is merged, only change state of the bug if needed. If
> > there is no state change, do not add an additional message. The external
> > tracker state should change reflecting the state of the review.
> I added a tracker to this bug [1], but not seeing the tracker state
> correctly reflected in BZ, is this work that needs to be done?

That indeed looks close to useless. If there is no summary/subject or
status in the external tracker table, we do not gain a lot. I hope this
can be fixed soon.

> > 3. Assign the bug to the committer. This has edge cases, but it's best
> > to at least handle the easy ones and then figure out edge cases later.
> > The experience is going to be better than what it is right now.
> Is the above a reference to just the "assigned to", or overall process?
> If overall can you elaborate a little more on why this would be better
> (I am not saying it is not, attempting to understand how you see it).

I assume this is the "assigned to" value in Bugzilla. Many BZs are
currently assigned to bugs at gluster.org even when the BZ is not in NEW
anymore. Asking for a status update in the BZ is therefore more
difficult as need to be (useless to select NEEDINFO=assignee).


> > 
> > Please provide feedback/comments by end of day Friday. I plan to add
> > this activity to the next Infra team sprint that starts on Monday (Sep 17).
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619423
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

More information about the Gluster-devel mailing list