Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Document bugzilla workflow

[Sebastian Luther <SebastianLuther@gmx.de>]

Am 15.01.2014 17:20, schrieb Tom Wijsman:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:29:19 +0100
> Sebastian Luther <SebastianLuther@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>> Am 15.01.2014 04:11, schrieb Tom Wijsman:
>>
>>
>> I send the first mail with this wording 8 days ago. Enough time to
>> comment on it. I'd prefer to discuss it on the list.
> 
> Yes, but not all comments were discussed yet, therefore (dis)agreement
> on them is missing; and this last thing rather became a topic of
> discussion due to the work clashes that we saw happen twice.
> 
I'd say the clashes occurred because nobody mentioned at all what they
are working on. Since people started using IN_PROGRESS to mean "I'm
working on it", this shouldn't happen again.
> 
> Yes, I see some commit messages not refer to bugs which is something we
> will want to avoid; think this might need to go into the commit policy.
> 
There's nothing wrong with fixing/implementing something that nobody
filed a bug about.

>>
>> The "way it was" is to not care about them at all. There was no
>> agreement on the the other thread if these things should be used or
>> not. So I left it vague so everyone could use it, but they are not
>> forced to.
> 
> Hmm, could this result in conflicting usage of these?

Maybe, but I'd first see if the usage patterns converge to something
that makes everyone happy.
> 
>>>> +There are a number of bugs named "[TRACKER] *" that collect bugs
>>>> +for specific topics. Confirmed bugs should be marked as blocking
>>>> +these tracker bugs if appropriate.
>>>
>>> For clarity, it should be mentioned that this does not mean to block
>>> the tracker for the next version; this could be misinterpreted.
>>
>> Considering that the tracker gets renamed, I'm not sure what you mean
>> here.
> 
> As you are confused yourself by misinterpreting what you have written,
> you demonstrate the case for the need of clarity here; this is not
> about the next version tracker or it being renamed at all, it's about
> all other trackers that are not version trackers. The part of the
> policy quoted here doesn't make that clear, it had me puzzling for a
> moment too when I first read that; I think you were puzzled too now...
> 

Sorry, I failed to properly read what you quoted.

I think once you know that these other trackers exist, it's clear. If
you want something added there, that's fine with me too.


Sebastian