FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-06-2011, 11:45 AM
Petteri Räty
 
Default Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

On 03/06/2011 02:22 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> in bugzilla-4.x they did change the "Status Workflow"[1].
>
> <snip>
> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
> system:
>

> "REOPENED" will become "CONFIRMED" (and the "REOPENED" status will be
> removed)

We would be loosing information here (at least you would need to go
looking at bug history to find it). Would it be possible to have the new
workflow + REOPENED? Would other statuses continue to exist like before?

Regards,
Petteri
 
Old 03-06-2011, 11:48 AM
Nirbheek Chauhan
 
Default Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Christian Ruppert <idl0r@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> in bugzilla-4.x they did change the "Status Workflow"[1].
>
[snip]
>
> We're almost done with the preparation of bugzilla-4.x for bugs.gentoo.org.
> So, do we want the new workflow or do we want to keep the old?
>

I'm not attached to the names we use for the various bug statuses. I
would suggest that we follow the path that makes things easiest for
future maintenance and upgrades.

As for the removal of REOPENED, I guess that information will still be
visible via the "bug history" button? It shouldn't be a problem then.

--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
 
Old 03-06-2011, 11:50 AM
Brian Harring
 
Default Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 01:22:09PM +0100, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> in bugzilla-4.x they did change the "Status Workflow"[1].
>
> <snip>
> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
> system:
>
> "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"

This seems mildly insane; sure you didn't mean UNCONFIRMED?


> "ASSIGNED" will become "IN_PROGRESS"
> "REOPENED" will become "CONFIRMED" (and the "REOPENED" status will be
> removed)

Similarly weird.


> "CLOSED" will become "VERIFIED" (and the "CLOSED" status will be removed)

VERIFIED != CLOSED; CLOSED means "this issue should be fixed",
VERIFIED means "this issue is confirmed fixed by whatever qa/testing
in use"- specifically beyond the developer's testing.


> We're almost done with the preparation of bugzilla-4.x for bugs.gentoo.org.
> So, do we want the new workflow or do we want to keep the old?

The new is more orientated towards bugzilla workflow's that have
actual secondary validation of a change- developer fixes it, closes
it, QA marks it verified, that sort of thing.

That doesn't really fit our flow all that much, as such we really
shouldn't be taking their defaults without tweaking it a bit.

~brian
 
Old 03-06-2011, 11:55 AM
Christian Ruppert
 
Default Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

On 03/06/2011 01:45 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 03/06/2011 02:22 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> in bugzilla-4.x they did change the "Status Workflow"[1].
>>
>> <snip>
>> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
>> system:
>>
>
>> "REOPENED" will become "CONFIRMED" (and the "REOPENED" status will be
>> removed)
>
> We would be loosing information here (at least you would need to go
> looking at bug history to find it). Would it be possible to have the new
> workflow + REOPENED? Would other statuses continue to exist like before?
>
> Regards,
> Petteri
>

Yes. Yes.

--
Regards,
Christian Ruppert
Role: Gentoo Linux developer, Bugzilla administrator and Infrastructure
member
Fingerprint: EEB1 C341 7C84 B274 6C59 F243 5EAB 0C62 B427 ABC8
 
Old 03-06-2011, 12:17 PM
Christian Faulhammer
 
Default Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

Hi,

Christian Ruppert <idl0r@gentoo.org>:
> We're almost done with the preparation of bugzilla-4.x for
> bugs.gentoo.org. So, do we want the new workflow or do we want to
> keep the old?

New one, reopened is a bit pointless information on first glance.
History tells enough.

V-Li

--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>
 
Old 03-06-2011, 12:39 PM
Ulrich Mueller
 
Default Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

>>>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Christian Ruppert wrote:

> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
> system:

> "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"

Weird. How can a newly added bug be "CONFIRMED", unless someone has
taken some action to confirm it?

> This change will be immediate. The history of each bug will also be
> changed so that it appears that these statuses were always in
> existence.

So all bugs currently marked as "NEW" or "REOPENED" will change their
status to "CONFIRMED"? That doesn't look right to me. Would that
status change be visible in the bug's history?

> So, do we want the new workflow or do we want to keep the old?

If the new workflow implies such status changes on existing bugs, then
keep the old one please.

Ulrich
 
Old 03-06-2011, 12:50 PM
Nirbheek Chauhan
 
Default Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>
>> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
>> system:
>
>> * "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"
>
> Weird. How can a newly added bug be "CONFIRMED", unless someone has
> taken some action to confirm it?
>
>> This change will be immediate. The history of each bug will also be
>> changed so that it appears that these statuses were always in
>> existence.
>
> So all bugs currently marked as "NEW" or "REOPENED" will change their
> status to "CONFIRMED"? That doesn't look right to me. Would that
> status change be visible in the bug's history?
>
>> So, do we want the new workflow or do we want to keep the old?
>
> If the new workflow implies such status changes on existing bugs, then
> keep the old one please.
>

The link to the docs which idl0r gave says that it's optional to
convert existing status changes. They gave a perl script to do the
conversion.


--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
 
Old 03-06-2011, 02:44 PM
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
 
Default Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

On 3/6/11 1:22 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> We're almost done with the preparation of bugzilla-4.x for bugs.gentoo.org.
> So, do we want the new workflow or do we want to keep the old?

I like the new workflow more, mostly because of simplicity. This is also
closer to what code.google.com uses, and my experience with it was very
positive.

Before we start arguing for and against various details, let's ask one
simple question - are we actually using all those CLOSED and VERIFIED
statuses, and what does it change that a bug is REOPENED vs. NEW.

Now one of the issues I can indeed understand is the CONFIRMED status
vs. UNCONFIRMED. Still, I'm not sure whether we use UNCONFIRMED so much.
Anyway, it should be possible to add UNCONFIRMED on top of the new
workflow, right?

Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
 
Old 03-07-2011, 06:24 AM
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
 
Default Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

On 3/6/11 1:50 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
>> "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"
>
> This seems mildly insane; sure you didn't mean UNCONFIRMED?

I don't understand that concern. There is UNCONFIRMED and NEW, now you'd
get UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED. It seems to me it's just NEW with a
different name, and UNCONFIRMED would still be there:

<http://bugzillaupdate.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/bugzilla-4-0-has-a-new-default-status-workflow/>

I'm in favor of the new workflow.

Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
 
Old 03-07-2011, 07:34 AM
Michał Górny
 
Default Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 13:22:09 +0100
Christian Ruppert <idl0r@gentoo.org> wrote:

> "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"
> "REOPENED" will become "CONFIRMED" (and the "REOPENED" status will
> be removed)

I'd say, both to UNCONFIRMED. Before, we used to set 'NEW' for newly-
added bugs and didn't use UNCONFIRMED often. Right now, it seems
logical to use UNCONFIRMED for the new bugs and let devs (re-)confirm
them as necessary.

I think it might be even a good idea to limit the possibility
of setting 'CONFIRMED' to devs. Otherwise, I see users bumping each
of their bugs to 'CONFIRMED' immediately.

> We're almost done with the preparation of bugzilla-4.x for
> bugs.gentoo.org. So, do we want the new workflow or do we want to
> keep the old?

New one. Simpler is better.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:19 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org