https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40985
--- Comment #4 from Tim Landscheidt <[email protected]> 2012-10-16 15:52:15 UTC --- I know this is the wrong bug, but I don't want to appear impolite. (In reply to comment #3) > Automatic closure as RESO FIXED submitting a patch won't work in each case. > [ The buggy ones ] > ie the cases we could ignore if Bugzilla users accept to be more > disciplined > In Wikimedia product, Site config or extension setup components, when the > operations change is merged, it's only a configuration file which have been > edited. The real resolution is when we deploy the new files and so it becomes > the production config. > Furthemore, imagine a scenario when an extension change requires also a core > change. In the perfect world, we should open a new bug for the core change > blocking the extension change. Don't automatically close allows not to be too > pedantic with Bugzilla use and work pragmatically. This is bad, but this is > how > we sometimes worked in the past. > I remember also a wiki with 3 requests in a single bug, two fixed by changes > pushed to Gerrit, one by intervention on the local wiki. We wanted to have the > 3 resolved to close the bug. This is clearly a case where we should have > created 3 new bugs, but we didn't. > __________________________ > [ The tricky ones ] > ie the cases automatic closure will never work > Now imagine also we try something to fix a very complicated bug, like bug > 37225 > (an history corruption issue). > It required 6 changed merged to resolve the bug: > https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/project:mediawiki/core+topic:bug/37225,n,z > + more changes to avoid similar situations in the future without an explicit > reference to the bug (see the last comments) The reality is that bugs were and are closed as RESOLVED FIXED when the patch is merged. Bug 17322 tries to automate just that; it doesn't force a committer to use a phrase that will trigger the auto-close when his patch doesn't fix everything, and it doesn't forbid a bug manager to close (or re-open) a bug manually if all conditions are fulfilled. If on deployment, not all bugs don't get the comment "Deployed.", that's also okay. What's the point you are trying to make? It won't work in 100 % of all cases, so let's not even implement it for the 95 % where it saves time? Yesterday, there were 8548 open bug reports in MediaWiki. Should we take Wikipedia offline until they are all fixed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
