On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 09:39:28AM -0600, Mark J. Nelson wrote: > Comment checking already involves validation of synopses and case titles > against b.o.o and arc.py, respectively. I don't want to conflate that > here, so this implies a class of bugs that won't be verifiable externally. > > It seems like "we can tell that there's an approved RTI for this bug, > but we can't get its synopsis from b.o.o" should result in passing the > rtichk, on the assumption that such RTIs are coming from inside SWAN, > and that an internal pbchk will have validated the information. > > [ ... ] > > How important is it that we provide some kind of handshake for this? Ie > an indication that the changegroup has passed pbchk internally?
Do we have an idea of the percentage of bugs being fixed in ON whose synopses are unavailable externally? If that's low (say, < 5%), then it probably isn't an issue. If not, then, it could be. The vast majority of bugs are still being fixed by internal folks, and that's not likely to change any time soon. And given how much trouble internal folks are having with getting the changeset comments right, I'm not sure that trusting them to have run pbchk successfully is significantly better than simply not doing the check at all. Danek
