On 11/06/2018 09:20 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 7:16 PM Shyam Ranganathan <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 5:05 PM Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay > > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 8:14 PM Yaniv Kaul > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:28 PM Niels de Vos > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> 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 > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers > > > > -- > > - Atin (atinm) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > maintainers mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers > > > _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
