[Gluster-Maintainers] Bug state change proposal based on the conversation on bz 1630368
Shyam Ranganathan
srangana at redhat.com
Tue Nov 6 14:27:49 UTC 2018
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
> >
>
More information about the maintainers
mailing list