Danek Duvall <danek.duvall at sun.com> writes: > 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?
We don't, but it could be discovered fairly easily. More difficult is how many of those are hidden by intent, rather than oversight, that would require a human to check for each cat/subcat. (If the bug is not marked security, and is not visible, the entire cat or subcat is hidden, I believe. Val?) > 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. Trusting them to get it right is completely and utterly wrong. -- Rich
