[Gluster-Maintainers] Bug state change proposal based on the conversation on bz 1630368

[Shyam Ranganathan]

On 11/06/2018 09:20 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 7:16 PM Shyam Ranganathan <srangana at redhat.com
> <mailto:srangana at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 11/05/2018 07:00 PM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
>     > Bit late to this, but I’m in favour of the proposal.
>     >
>     > The script change should only consider transitioning the bug
>     status from
>     > POST to CLOSED NEXTRELEASE on master branch only. What’d be also ideal
>     > is to update the fixed in version in which this patch will land.
> 
>     2 things, based on my response to this thread,
> 
>     - Script will change this bug state for all branches, not just master. I
>     do not see a reason to keep master special.
> 
>     - When moving the state to NEXTRELEASE I would not want to put in a
>     fixed in version yet, as that may change/morph, instead it would be
>     added (as it is now) when the release is made and the bug changed to
>     CURRENTRELEASE.
> 
> 
> I can buy in the point of having the other branches also follow the same
> rule of bug status moving to NEXTRELEASE from POST (considering we're
> fine to run a script during the release of mass moving them to
> CURRENTRELEASE) but not having the fixed in version in the bugs which
> are with mainline branch may raise a question/concern on what exact
> version this bug is being addressed at? Or is it that the post release
> bug movement script also considers all the bugs fixed in the master
> branch as well?

Here is the way I see it,
- If you find a bug on master and want to know if it is
present/applicable for a release, you chase it's clone against the release
- The state of the cloned bug against the release, tells you if is is
CURRENTRELEASE/NEXTRELEASE/or what not.

So referring to the bug on master, to determine state on which
release(s) it is fixed in is not the way to find fixed state.

As a result,
- A bug on master with NEXTRELEASE means next major release of master.

- A Bug on a release branch with NEXTRELEASE means, next major/minor
release of the branch.

> 
> 
>     In all, the only change is the already existing script moving a bug from
>     POST to CLOSED-NEXTRELEASE instead of MODIFIED.
> 
>     >
>     > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 21:39, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul at redhat.com
>     <mailto:ykaul at redhat.com>
>     > <mailto:ykaul at redhat.com <mailto:ykaul at redhat.com>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 5:05 PM Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay
>     >     <sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com
>     <mailto:sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com>
>     >     <mailto:sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com
>     <mailto:sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >         On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 8:14 PM Yaniv Kaul
>     <ykaul at redhat.com <mailto:ykaul at redhat.com>
>     >         <mailto:ykaul at redhat.com <mailto:ykaul at redhat.com>>> wrote:
>     >         > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:28 PM Niels de Vos
>     <ndevos at redhat.com <mailto:ndevos at redhat.com>
>     >         <mailto:ndevos at redhat.com <mailto:ndevos at redhat.com>>> wrote:
>     >         >>
>     >         >> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 05:31:26PM +0530, Pranith Kumar
>     >         Karampuri wrote:
>     >         >> > hi,
>     >         >> >     When we create a bz on master and clone it to the
>     next
>     >         release(In my
>     >         >> > case it was release-5.0), after that release happens
>     can we
>     >         close the bz on
>     >         >> > master with CLOSED NEXTRELEASE?
>     >         >
>     >         >
>     >         > Since no one is going to verify it (right now, but I'm
>     hopeful
>     >         this will change in the future!), no point in keeping it open.
>     >         > You could keep it open and move it along the process,
>     and then
>     >         close it properly when you release the next release.
>     >         > It's kinda pointless if no one's going to do anything
>     with it
>     >         between MODIFIED to CLOSED.
>     >         > I mean - assuming you move it to ON_QA - who's going to
>     do the
>     >         verification?
>     >         >
>     >         > In oVirt, QE actually verifies upstream bugs, so there is
>     >         value. They are also all appear in the release notes, with
>     their
>     >         status and so on.
>     >
>     >         The Glusto framework is intended to accomplish this end,
>     is it not?
>     >
>     >
>     >     If the developer / QE engineer developed a test case for that BZ -
>     >     that would be amazing!
>     >     Y.
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     maintainers mailing list
>     >     maintainers at gluster.org <mailto:maintainers at gluster.org>
>     <mailto:maintainers at gluster.org <mailto:maintainers at gluster.org>>
>     >     https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>     >
>     > --
>     > - Atin (atinm)
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > maintainers mailing list
>     > maintainers at gluster.org <mailto:maintainers at gluster.org>
>     > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>     >
>