[gentoo-dev] RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing

[gentoo-dev] RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1026 bytes --]

To make it easier to find stabilization bugs with arch-testers'
comments, I'd like to add new flags to Gentoo bugzilla.

This is only an initial idea, and maybe a different implementation would
be better (like the status whiteboard, if it's easily searchable).

Initially, I'd like a new flag x86-at to be added, with states:

" " (default),
"+" (meaning that an AT has tested the package successfully on x86), "-"
(meaning that an AT found some problems preventing stabilization)
"?" (meaning a developer asks for more urgent AT testing)

What do you think? Feel free to suggest alternative implementations. The
goal is to easily find bugs where ATs posted comments that the package
is ready to go stable.

Also, I think it may be useful for other arch teams (like amd64). One
solution would be to add yet another flag, like amd64-at, but maybe we
can have some better ideas.

After a consensus is reached, I'm going to file a bug for infra for
necessary changes in bugzilla configuration.

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing

[Matti Bickel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 341 bytes --]

On 04/26/2010 11:40 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> To make it easier to find stabilization bugs with arch-testers'
> comments, I'd like to add new flags to Gentoo bugzilla.

Can you explain how the "TESTED" Keyword is not sufficient for your
goal? It explicitly states: "Ebuilds that have been marked as tested by
arch testers".


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 496 bytes --]

On 4/26/10 12:34 PM, Matti Bickel wrote:
> On 04/26/2010 11:40 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
>> To make it easier to find stabilization bugs with arch-testers'
>> comments, I'd like to add new flags to Gentoo bugzilla.
> 
> Can you explain how the "TESTED" Keyword is not sufficient for your
> goal? It explicitly states: "Ebuilds that have been marked as tested by
> arch testers".

I'd like to narrow the search to x86 arch testers. We test independently
on each arch.

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:40:07AM +0200, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> Also, I think it may be useful for other arch teams (like amd64). One
> solution would be to add yet another flag, like amd64-at, but maybe we
> can have some better ideas.
The problem here is that it becomes extremely messy when more and more
arches want the same functionality. 13 common arches, 3 fbsd arches, and
lots variations from the Prefix arches. This would take up a LOT of
screen space in Bugzilla unfortunately.

How about the following instead, going into the status whiteboard:
AT:x86:+
AT:x86:-
AT:x86:?
with the same meanings that you defined.

It should be just as easy to search, and you can do it today already.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 534 bytes --]

Hi,

"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org>:
> How about the following instead, going into the status whiteboard:
> AT:x86:+
> AT:x86:-
> AT:x86:?
> with the same meanings that you defined.
> 
> It should be just as easy to search, and you can do it today already.

 Yes, sounds good.  What is the best way to document it apart from the
various AT FAQs?

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 477 bytes --]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:40:07 +0200
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:

> After a consensus is reached, I'm going to file a bug for infra for
> necessary changes in bugzilla configuration.


  https://bugs.gentoo.org/213514


-- 
fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]