-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 22/05/13 07:03 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > On 05/22/2013 09:11 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 21/05/13 11:46 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > >>> I do, however, completely agree that there should be some way >>> to leave the bug open and state that it will be stabled later. >>> Would a comment trigger this in the script? That seems >>> semi-sane. If the maintainer wanted to stabilize things they >>> would cc arches, any other comment could likely be understood >>> to mean "don't auto-stable this". > >> Maybe we can do something with bug status? Something along the >> lines maybe of filing as 'unconfirmed' and a dev setting it to >> 'confirmed' (or anything else) would make it be ignored by the >> auto-stabilizer ? Or maybe 'confirmed' is the initial status and >> a dev can set it to 'unconfirmed' or w/e... ? > > > Changing Confirmed->Unconfirmed seems like a good policy. Also if > we are going to start establishing such policies they should be > posted somewhere and linked to from the autostabilization script's > comment. >
I expect the script can probably work on the basis that any status other than what the bug was filed with is an exclusion for the auto-stable pass (confirmed->unconfirmed in this case). However, yes I agree it would be very useful to have a link to some page, describing the the whole autostabilization process (what the script does, how devs can interact with it). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlGeEiUACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAeNAD/QcSQL7yufe2YpKTb2cV2VP0r WJoHs4uozZIsRDrYXjcA/1icODLSi/sjCl6+zRLjdiUKvRJbKiz2FZRzAtZ3IjFN =B9Pd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
