[gentoo-dev] Re: changes to tested bugzilla keyword proposal
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 01:41:00 -0600 Ryan Hill wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 06:15:32 -0500 > Rich Freeman wrote: > > Are there any issues with changing the product/component on existing > > bugs? I could see things turn into keyword requests which didn't > > start out as such. > > The message I quoted was from 2008. We've added a Keywording and > Stabilization component since then so we're halfway there already. I misread that. I don't think there would be any issues, though I really don't know. -- gcc-porting toolchain, wxwidgetslearn a language baby, it's that kind of place @ gentoo.org where low card is hunger and high card is taste signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: changes to tested bugzilla keyword proposal
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 06:15:32 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: > >> > >> If we added a "Keyword/Stable Request" component to the "Gentoo Linux" > >> product we could also have it dependent on that, so only bugs in that > >> component would display the flags. > > You'd need to include security bugs as well at the very least as they > almost always include keyword changes. Good catch. > Are there any issues with changing the product/component on existing > bugs? I could see things turn into keyword requests which didn't > start out as such. The message I quoted was from 2008. We've added a Keywording and Stabilization component since then so we're halfway there already. -- gcc-porting toolchain, wxwidgetslearn a language baby, it's that kind of place @ gentoo.org where low card is hunger and high card is taste signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: changes to tested bugzilla keyword proposal
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: >> >> If we added a "Keyword/Stable Request" component to the "Gentoo Linux" >> product we could also have it dependent on that, so only bugs in that >> component would display the flags. You'd need to include security bugs as well at the very least as they almost always include keyword changes. Are there any issues with changing the product/component on existing bugs? I could see things turn into keyword requests which didn't start out as such. >> We can also make it so only people with >> editbugs privileges can request or set flags. ++ Rich
[gentoo-dev] Re: changes to tested bugzilla keyword proposal
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 18:02:01 +0100 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > A lot clearer than a single text field littered with keywords would be some > tick boxes, indeed. In fact, it makes me wonder why we use a half-obscured > list in a select field for adding/removing arch teams now. https://bugs.gentoo.org/213514 On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 09:24:36 -0600 Ryan Hill wrote: > On keywording/stabilizing, Bugzilla has a flags feature that might be used to > track what has been tested where. > > Flags have three states: +, -, and ?. + and - are obvious, and ? is a > request. So imagine having a "x86 tested" flag that the maintainer sets to > "?" to request stabilization of their package. An email is sent to the arch > alias notifying them of the request. The arch tester tests it out and sets > the flag to + or - depending on their results. The arch dev stabilizes the > package as normal. > > If we added a "Keyword/Stable Request" component to the "Gentoo Linux" > product we could also have it dependent on that, so only bugs in that > component would display the flags. We can also make it so only people with > editbugs privileges can request or set flags. -- gcc-porting toolchain, wxwidgetslearn a language baby, it's that kind of place @ gentoo.org where low card is hunger and high card is taste signature.asc Description: PGP signature
