Hi,
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 19:32, Kristis Makris <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Yavor.
>
> On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 19:02 +0300, Yavor Nikolov wrote:
> > Hi Kristis,
> >
> > I'm sharing my current cumulative patch on top of scmbug 0.26.17 which
> >
> >
> > we're using on our environment with Bugzilla 3.6 (final) and 3.4.6.
> > - Added support for Bugzilla 3.6 version number
> > - Same fix for status & resolution with Bugzilla 3.2+ (a bit
> > reformatted and simplified)
> > - Same fix with eval block around comment adding (a bit reformatted
> > and a bit simplified as per Max's comments)
>
> It doesn't seem simplified. For example, the eval{} block still includes
> most of the source, instead of just the call to check().
>
I meant I removed the default parameters of comment add and removed a
redundant check which is anyway performed by Bugzilla. Single eval still
seems simpler to me than multiple ones. Not only check() calls may throw
error: set_status, set_assigned_to, set_..., update (and maybe others), can
die too. Transaction blocks stay since as I've explained - that seems safer
to me; otherwise we may lose a fully-valid bug updates in certain
circumstances.
>
> > - A bit extended revision of my old patch for Bugzilla e-mail
> > notification (http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=832). I've bee
> > using that since an year with no problems. Following daemon.conf --
> > bugtracker parameters should be added to enable it:
> > notification_enabled => 1 # bugtracker e-mail notification enabled
> > changer_notification_enabled => 1 # notify bug changer too
>
> Hold it right there...
>
> You are mixing multiple things in this patch. Bugzilla e-mail
> notifications are a separate issue from status resolution. They
> shouldn't be part of this patch.
>
You're right - sorry for that! I'm aware that problems should be targeted
separately. (Changes around commend add; and 3.6 version type support are
also diversions from original issue...). But I'm just living with that
e-mail patch applied; I tweaked the other changes on top of it; and I've
been too lazy to split the changes apart for separate diffs. I just wanted
to share the current state of all necessary for us modifications which make
scmbug compatible enough with Bugzilla.
(I just realized the e-mail patch is anyway a bit incomplete since SendMail
may die with exception too.../even though not very likely/)
Regards,
Yavor
_______________________________________________
scmbug-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mkgnu.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scmbug-users
