On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Eyal Edri <[email protected]> wrote: > > indeed. > > we need to decide here what automation we want (each flow has its cons & > > pros) > > > > moving bugs from POST->MODIFIED > > - pros > > - bugs are not forgotten on POST and waiting for manual action, > > leaving possibility of not moving to ON_QA on a release even though they > are > > fixed. > > I think it's still a bit risky and should be left for a human. At least as > long > as we do not do TDD. > > > > > - cons > > - bot can't know if bug is solved completely and more patches are > > coming. > > > > > > solution: > > - use bug-url ONLY in the main patch that when its merged > then > > bug will move to MODIFIED, all other patches should use related-to: (we > can > > ensure bug won't change status for related to patches) > > I can live with this, but as I wrote in another mail in this thread, I > think > that's a bit overloading the meaning of Related-To. > > > > > > > moving MODIFIED->POST > > - i think in any case we should stop doing this, and its the > > maintainer responsibility to move it back to POST if he didn't add all > > patches. > > Really? Do you see any risk in moving to POST? > yes. we talked in the past about bots moving statues back, and it should be left for human - i don't see a reason why this should be different. but we can bring it up for discussion, a change in hooks affects everyone and not to be decided on a mail thread > -- > Didi > -- Eyal Edri Supervisor, RHEV CI EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Red Hat Israel phone: +972-9-7692018 irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
