On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 19:03 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote:
> I'm proposing adding a new status like
> PATCH_TO_REVIEW or
> or something like this (bikeshed, yay!). Probably the first.
> The status would replace the "patch-in-gerrit" keyword
Thanks for the opinions and comments so far.
I don't pla
In my opinion Patch-in-gerrit is a distinct stage in the life cycle of
a bug, and deserves its own status.
A patch-in-gerrit does not mean the same thing as assigned. Assigned
bugs are being worked on by someone. There work may or may not be
publically visible yet. They are probably not at the sta
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 12:23 -0800, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> My 2cif we add a new status, it should equate to "deployed on the
> cluster", along with judicious use of milestone so that people who are
> just interested in the tarball can infer from our numbering what the
> corresponding release will
On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 02:09 +0100, Krinkle wrote:
> I agree with Sébastien. ASSIGNED is enough.
> I don't see the significance of whether there is a Gerrit change yet?
See below.
Plus as Bugzilla already has a "patch-in-gerrit" keyword (and other
"patch*" ones) so somebody in the past had interest
Le 13/12/12 02:27, Matthew Flaschen a écrit :
> People can look for the PATCH_IN_GERRIT status to find things to review.
> As you say, some changes are good, some are not. This is another way
> to attract reviewers to Gerrit changes.
We can find patches to review in Gerrit. I think the proposa
Le 13/12/12 01:15, Sébastien Santoro a écrit :
> ASSIGNED seems perfect for me. It's ASSIGNED, this mean there are work
> going to be done, or done.
>
> Gerrit gives the detail.
I must agree there. There is still one use case for which we do not
really have a solution: find out bugs that do not
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:27 AM, Matthew Flaschen
wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 05:09 PM, Krinkle wrote:
>> I agree with Sébastien. ASSIGNED is enough.
>>
>> I don't see the significance of whether there is a Gerrit change yet?
>>
>> If there is no Gerrit change, it doesn't mean nobody is working on it.
On 12/12/12 21:23, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> My 2cif we add a new status, it should equate to "deployed on the
> cluster", along with judicious use of milestone so that people who are
> just interested in the tarball can infer from our numbering what the
> corresponding release will be.
On which w
On 12/12/2012 05:09 PM, Krinkle wrote:
> I agree with Sébastien. ASSIGNED is enough.
>
> I don't see the significance of whether there is a Gerrit change yet?
>
> If there is no Gerrit change, it doesn't mean nobody is working on it.
> And if there is a change, it may not be a good one and/or one
On Dec 13, 2012, at 1:25 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 04:15 PM, Sébastien Santoro wrote:
>>> Currently there is a "patch-in-gerrit" keyword in Bugzilla. When a bug
>>> report ends up as RESOLVED FIXED there usually had been a codefix in
>>> Gerrit that got merged. Hence "patch in g
On 12/12/2012 04:15 PM, Sébastien Santoro wrote:
>> Currently there is a "patch-in-gerrit" keyword in Bugzilla. When a bug
>> report ends up as RESOLVED FIXED there usually had been a codefix in
>> Gerrit that got merged. Hence "patch in gerrit" could be considered
>> another state on the journey o
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Andre Klapper wrote:
> Two quotes from the last weeks:
> Krenair in #mediawiki on Nov 30 22:46:47:
> "andre__, what is stopping us from making a 'patch in
> gerrit' bug status with a link to the change?"
> Ryan Kaldari in
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_b
I think we could have different types of pending - pending design pending
review pending legal etc etc.
Maybe this is out of scope though..?
On Dec 12, 2012 12:55 PM, "Matthew Flaschen"
wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 12:44 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
> > I would love this status.
> > I'd suggest calling it PE
On 12/12/2012 12:44 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
> I would love this status.
> I'd suggest calling it PENDING
>
> I could imagine states:
> PENDING
I'd prefer something more specific. I actually think PATCH_IN_GERRIT
(the keyword) would work well as a status.
Matt Flaschen
___
I would love this status.
I'd suggest calling it PENDING
I could imagine states:
PENDING
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
wrote:
> 2012/12/12 Rob Lanphier :
>> The more statuses (statii?) we add,
>
> statūs, if I recall correctly.
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע
2012/12/12 Rob Lanphier :
> The more statuses (statii?) we add,
statūs, if I recall correctly.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
___
Wikitech
My 2cif we add a new status, it should equate to "deployed on the
cluster", along with judicious use of milestone so that people who are
just interested in the tarball can infer from our numbering what the
corresponding release will be.
The more statuses (statii?) we add, the less likely they'
There's also the question of "released in tarball" vs "deployed on
Wikipedia". A lot of people just care about the latter.
And about the original question - I support the idea and don't care how is
it called.
בתאריך 12 בדצמ 2012 20:14, מאת "Antoine Musso" :
> Le 12/12/12 19:03, Andre Klapper a éc
Le 12/12/12 19:03, Andre Klapper a écrit :
> I'm proposing adding a new status like
> PATCH_TO_REVIEW or
> WAITING_FOR_MERGE or
> FIX_AWAITING_MERGE or
> REVIEW_IN_PROGRESS
> or something like this (bikeshed, yay!). Probably the first.
I use Bugzilla as a todo list and would love to f
Two quotes from the last weeks:
Krenair in #mediawiki on Nov 30 22:46:47:
"andre__, what is stopping us from making a 'patch in
gerrit' bug status with a link to the change?"
Ryan Kaldari in
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42470#c4 :
"I use Bugzilla as a to-do list. [...] If B
20 matches
Mail list logo
