Vladimir Beliaev wrote:
Hello,
I experimented with DRLVM JIRA filtering to get an idea about current
issues. BTW, does anyone know the expression to find "all DRLVM bugs
excepting ones containing [jit] in summary" (I mean, help says that just
'NOT "\[jit\]"' in summary is not a valid expression) ???
>
Anyway, it turned out that a lot of JIRAs of the same kind have
different prefixes, some of them have no prefix at all, some of them
have not-quite-correct type (like "Improvement" is set to "Bug"), some
of them have patches but do not have "Patch available" set.
The attached document contains the notes about found issues in simple
form. Would be nice to get these cleanup issues resolved to simplify
working with JIRA. Ok, not all of the issues are fixed yet.
I've applied the changes to most JIRAs which you've listed. Those that
are already closed I didn't touch. Sorry for causing some spam on
commits mail list.
I followed the rules below which I gathered from existing DRLVM JIRA
summaries:
* each DRLVM issue summary should have [drlvm] prefix (it may help with
'NOT "\[jit\]"' filter issue because valid one is '"\[drlvm\]" NOT
"\[jit\]"')
* each JIT-related issue contains [jit] additional prefix. So, the
valid one is [drlvm][jit][opt], not [drlvm][opt]
* each build-system related issue contains [build] additional prefix
(like regression framework should have [drlvm][build] prefix)
* prefix may include addition prefix defining subcomponent (like [gc],
[thread], [verifier], [em], [opt], [port], etc).
* if JIRA has Test type, it may have [test] additional prefix.
* prefix should use low case letters (because ordering by summary is
case sensitive - [DRLVM][GC] and [drlvm][gc] are not shown together)
* prefix should not contain 'space' character (excepting prefixes like
[drlvm][kernel test])
That's it
Thanks
---
Vladimir Beliaev
Intel, Enterprise Solutions Software Division
P.S. I'll resend this e-mail if attachment will be lost due to apache
filtering.
It was not lost... surprise.
--
Gregory
