Won't it be better to add a custom field for gerrit patchs to ease the
search of them and take the need to skim the whole thread to find a
comment with a link to gerrit patch?
I suggested it here:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39399
we might have some benefits if we rethink the
On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 17:59 +, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
When need-review should be removed?
If I understand it correctly: If the review takes place in Gerrit
anyway, then I don't see much sense in having this keyword in Bugzilla.
It should rather indicate something like The attached patch
Personally I don't like these keywords in bugzilla __at all__ and don't use
them. This is mostly because I think they are extremely hidden in the
interface.
From my point of view bugzilla should provide a status: 'in review'
alongside 'new', 'unconfirmed', 'resolved' and 'assigned'
This would be
+1.
-Chad
On Aug 28, 2012 6:24 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I don't like these keywords in bugzilla __at all__ and don't use
them. This is mostly because I think they are extremely hidden in the
interface.
From my point of view bugzilla should provide a status: 'in
Jon Robson wrote:
Personally I don't like these keywords in bugzilla __at all__ and don't use
them. This is mostly because I think they are extremely hidden in the
interface.
From my point of view bugzilla should provide a status: 'in review'
alongside 'new', 'unconfirmed', 'resolved' and
From my point of view bugzilla should provide a status: 'in review'
alongside 'new', 'unconfirmed', 'resolved' and 'assigned'
It'd be nice if the statuses weren't all shouted and single words. INREVIEW
is pretty unpleasant.
How about ATTEMPTED, PATCHED, DEVELOPED, PROPOSED or even FIXED
I would like to stress the more natural way to review patches in
Gerrit seems to be directly from the Gerrit site, making less useful
the possibility to easily search on Bugzilla patch with code in
Gerrit.
Is one of you has a real use case with Bugzilla as gerrit patch finding tool?
--
Dereckson
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:48 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I think we should take a holistic approach to the Bugzilla workflow. I was
hoping the incoming Wikimedia Foundation entomologist would work on this.
It'd be great to fix one aspect of bug filing (such as the use of keywords),
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:48:51 -0700, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Jon Robson wrote:
Personally I don't like these keywords in bugzilla __at all__ and don't
use
them. This is mostly because I think they are extremely hidden in the
interface.
From my point of view bugzilla should
Hello,
Recently I noticed that keywords in bugzilla get
updated more and more often, mostly with keywords
like patch, patch-need-review, etc.
I am wondering what to do in the following situations
(like https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39635
for example):
- user A posts a patch
-
On 08/27/2012 01:59 PM, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
- user A posts a patch
- the bug gets patch, patch-need-review
- user B posts a patch that is different and says
he does not like patch of A
- user B submits change to gerrit
When need-review should be removed?
User B should remove
See also
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Thread:Talk:Git/Workflow/Bugzilla
Best regards,
Helder
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
12 matches
Mail list logo
