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

[Atin Mukherjee]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 19:57, Shyam Ranganathan <srangana at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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.


Question : With this workflow what happens when a bug is just filed & fixed
only in master and comes as a fix to the next release as part of branch
out? So how would an user understand what release version is the fix in if
we don’t have a fixed in version?


>
> 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
> >     >
> >
>
-- 
- Atin (atinm)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20181106/fb0b6a93/attachment-0001.html>