Alternatives to automatically move bugs to MODIFIED
Hi all, We currently have a bot that automatically moves bugs from POST to MODIFIED if all linked patches on gerrit are merged. It happened to me personally several times that this was a wrong thing to do, either because a new patch was still needed but not pushed yet, or because an existing patch should have been back-ported to another branch and wasn't yet. Since I usually pay more attention to my bug in POST, I sometimes missed this and handled the missing patches (backports, usually) later than I could if left on POST. I have a feeling I am not the only one. So I suggest to stop doing this. I can think of several alternatives: 1. Do nothing. I think that's reasonable - I think most people pay more attention to POST bugs anyway. 2. Set needinfo on bug owner. 3. Send some alert email to relevant people (bug owner, existing patches owners, perhaps others - e.g. reviewers of existing patches, perhaps those that actually reviewed, etc.). Need to think how to make it not too annoying for others but still effective also if owner is on long PTO or something like that. New flag doesn't have to be very specific - can be called something like 'attention needed' or something like that. 4. Add a new flag for that and set it. This will allow easier filtering/reporting. What do you think? -- Didi
I also got this, especially when bugs should be back-ported +1 for option #1 On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi all,
We currently have a bot that automatically moves bugs from POST to MODIFIED if all linked patches on gerrit are merged.
It happened to me personally several times that this was a wrong thing to do, either because a new patch was still needed but not pushed yet, or because an existing patch should have been back-ported to another branch and wasn't yet. Since I usually pay more attention to my bug in POST, I sometimes missed this and handled the missing patches (backports, usually) later than I could if left on POST.
I have a feeling I am not the only one. So I suggest to stop doing this.
I can think of several alternatives:
1. Do nothing. I think that's reasonable - I think most people pay more attention to POST bugs anyway.
2. Set needinfo on bug owner.
3. Send some alert email to relevant people (bug owner, existing patches owners, perhaps others - e.g. reviewers of existing patches, perhaps those that actually reviewed, etc.). Need to think how to make it not too annoying for others but still effective also if owner is on long PTO or something like that. New flag doesn't have to be very specific - can be called something like 'attention needed' or something like that.
4. Add a new flag for that and set it. This will allow easier filtering/reporting.
What do you think? -- Didi _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
בתאריך 17 באוג׳ 2016 12:06 אחה״צ, "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> כתב:
I also got this, especially when bugs should be back-ported +1 for option #1
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com>
wrote:
Hi all,
We currently have a bot that automatically moves bugs from POST to
MODIFIED
if all linked patches on gerrit are merged.
It happened to me personally several times that this was a wrong thing to do, either because a new patch was still needed but not pushed yet, or because an existing patch should have been back-ported to another branch and wasn't yet. Since I usually pay more attention to my bug in POST, I sometimes missed this and handled the missing patches (backports, usually) later than I could if left on POST.
I have a feeling I am not the only one. So I suggest to stop doing this.
I can think of several alternatives:
1. Do nothing. I think that's reasonable - I think most people pay more attention to POST bugs anyway.
+1
2. Set needinfo on bug owner.
3. Send some alert email to relevant people (bug owner, existing patches
owners,
perhaps others - e.g. reviewers of existing patches, perhaps those that actually reviewed, etc.). Need to think how to make it not too annoying for others but still effective also if owner is on long PTO or something like that. New flag doesn't have to be very specific - can be called something like 'attention needed' or something like that.
4. Add a new flag for that and set it. This will allow easier filtering/reporting.
What do you think? -- Didi _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
I still thinks its a very valuable hook and we are aware of the fact it has bugs, especially with patches on master branch and 4.0. Shlomi from the infra team is working on a solution for it as we speak and we hope to have a solution in the next few days, however it's not trival to test and requires setting up a staging env and improve loga for the hooks system. On Aug 17, 2016 12:06 PM, "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> wrote:
I also got this, especially when bugs should be back-ported +1 for option #1
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi all,
We currently have a bot that automatically moves bugs from POST to MODIFIED if all linked patches on gerrit are merged.
It happened to me personally several times that this was a wrong thing to do, either because a new patch was still needed but not pushed yet, or because an existing patch should have been back-ported to another branch and wasn't yet. Since I usually pay more attention to my bug in POST, I sometimes missed this and handled the missing patches (backports, usually) later than I could if left on POST.
I have a feeling I am not the only one. So I suggest to stop doing this.
I can think of several alternatives:
1. Do nothing. I think that's reasonable - I think most people pay more attention to POST bugs anyway.
2. Set needinfo on bug owner.
3. Send some alert email to relevant people (bug owner, existing patches owners, perhaps others - e.g. reviewers of existing patches, perhaps those that actually reviewed, etc.). Need to think how to make it not too annoying for others but still effective also if owner is on long PTO or something like that. New flag doesn't have to be very specific - can be called something like 'attention needed' or something like that.
4. Add a new flag for that and set it. This will allow easier filtering/reporting.
What do you think? -- Didi _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
I still thinks its a very valuable hook and we are aware of the fact it has bugs, especially with patches on master branch and 4.0.
Shlomi from the infra team is working on a solution for it as we speak and we hope to have a solution in the next few days, however it's not trival to test and requires setting up a staging env and improve loga for the hooks system.
How do you plan to solve this? Only the owner of the bug knows if the all the required patches are merged and backported to the correct repositories.
On Aug 17, 2016 12:06 PM, "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> wrote:
I also got this, especially when bugs should be back-ported +1 for option #1
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi all,
We currently have a bot that automatically moves bugs from POST to MODIFIED if all linked patches on gerrit are merged.
It happened to me personally several times that this was a wrong thing to do, either because a new patch was still needed but not pushed yet, or because an existing patch should have been back-ported to another branch and wasn't yet. Since I usually pay more attention to my bug in POST, I sometimes missed this and handled the missing patches (backports, usually) later than I could if left on POST.
I have a feeling I am not the only one. So I suggest to stop doing this.
I can think of several alternatives:
1. Do nothing. I think that's reasonable - I think most people pay more attention to POST bugs anyway.
2. Set needinfo on bug owner.
3. Send some alert email to relevant people (bug owner, existing patches owners, perhaps others - e.g. reviewers of existing patches, perhaps those that actually reviewed, etc.). Need to think how to make it not too annoying for others but still effective also if owner is on long PTO or something like that. New flag doesn't have to be very specific - can be called something like 'attention needed' or something like that.
4. Add a new flag for that and set it. This will allow easier filtering/reporting.
What do you think? -- Didi _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
I still thinks its a very valuable hook and we are aware of the fact it has bugs, especially with patches on master branch and 4.0.
Shlomi from the infra team is working on a solution for it as we speak and we hope to have a solution in the next few days, however it's not
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote: trival to
test and requires setting up a staging env and improve loga for the hooks system.
How do you plan to solve this?
Only the owner of the bug knows if the all the required patches are merged
The authors should use Bug-Url on the main bug and related-to: on other patches that are related.
and backported to the correct repositories.
This is done with logic according to the bug target milestone. for e.g - a patch on branch 'ovirt-engine-4.0' was merged to bug targeted to ovirt-4.0.2. The hook should check if branch 4.0.2 exists or not, if it exists then the bug should NOT move to MODIFIED, since it needs still backporting to ovirt-engine-4.0.2 branch.
On Aug 17, 2016 12:06 PM, "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> wrote:
I also got this, especially when bugs should be back-ported +1 for option #1
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi all,
We currently have a bot that automatically moves bugs from POST to MODIFIED if all linked patches on gerrit are merged.
It happened to me personally several times that this was a wrong thing
do, either because a new patch was still needed but not pushed yet, or because an existing patch should have been back-ported to another branch and wasn't yet. Since I usually pay more attention to my bug in POST, I sometimes missed this and handled the missing patches (backports, usually) later than I could if left on POST.
I have a feeling I am not the only one. So I suggest to stop doing
I can think of several alternatives:
1. Do nothing. I think that's reasonable - I think most people pay more attention to POST bugs anyway.
2. Set needinfo on bug owner.
3. Send some alert email to relevant people (bug owner, existing
to this. patches
owners, perhaps others - e.g. reviewers of existing patches, perhaps those that actually reviewed, etc.). Need to think how to make it not too annoying for others but still effective also if owner is on long PTO or something like that. New flag doesn't have to be very specific - can be called something like 'attention needed' or something like that.
4. Add a new flag for that and set it. This will allow easier filtering/reporting.
What do you think? -- Didi _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-- Eyal Edri Associate Manager RHV DevOps EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Red Hat Israel phone: +972-9-7692018 irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
--8i1HOXugmSQuWueLEopGDxqPBUDajpkQm Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0l3UX7XhUGI78WFlaq7nHEGVAdiMuJlAm" From: Sven Kieske <s.kieske@mittwald.de> To: devel@ovirt.org Message-ID: <c9191e61-516f-b6dc-5d8f-b88de771511c@mittwald.de> X-Authenticated-mymxserver.com: Yes Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Alternatives to automatically move bugs to MODIFIED References: <CAHRwYXsjENpVj-wWiRFcd1h9FWSp4FWVYH0oEP72wT91v0qVbA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMRbyyt=H2ycdvD6JkgNf8guRt+wz4xhrrAR0jViHxcrURN4+Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAMRbyyt=H2ycdvD6JkgNf8guRt+wz4xhrrAR0jViHxcrURN4+Q@mail.gmail.com> --0l3UX7XhUGI78WFlaq7nHEGVAdiMuJlAm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 17/08/16 13:25, Nir Soffer wrote:
Only the owner of the bug knows if the all the required patches are mer= ged and backported to the correct repositories.
Why not just set needinfo on bug assignee when all linked patches are merged? this would ensure that missing patches get uploaded asap and once this is done and all patches are merged you can clear needinfo and move the bug to modified manually? --=20 Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen / Regards Sven Kieske Systemadministrator Mittwald CM Service GmbH & Co. KG K=F6nigsberger Stra=DFe 6 32339 Espelkamp T: +495772 293100 F: +495772 293333 https://www.mittwald.de Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrer: Robert Meyer St.Nr.: 331/5721/1033, USt-IdNr.: DE814773217, HRA 6640, AG Bad Oeynhause= n Komplement=E4rin: Robert Meyer Verwaltungs GmbH, HRB 13260, AG Bad Oeynha= usen --0l3UX7XhUGI78WFlaq7nHEGVAdiMuJlAm-- --8i1HOXugmSQuWueLEopGDxqPBUDajpkQm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJXtFANAAoJEMby9TMDAbQRLsIP/RwTlK74FLs2v3HD/ABO7ehD RwNnW/E2+J+PK7KkCy6eDoupXd/0Q+ae2vGd1JmapZmnc1rO9sFWjClor80mVpjt Rtq9gOzxc/kqOwQt8sm0YQVNA4+crHY/ohEqBE0GChagllaySe4zfD0XdAL/aTEg w6eCqdxqZixVpX7wL/vEv5SlhLU5lGFQcTEhd+l4aEUGVz+3E8FgDtH4/vU6h72u Zbi9Fe72s/besTCS2NWuFwr5vwd8PtgIYja/de3tmnUtODevgUSEr3v0PuvPt0sL 00n1ewDpIq+X2JbRF1mdZ09O2FENmtEdk+9oHX8q04XdRX0O8mK+2tzqw+zy8+9d OraLSgctWghbGdq65qVn3uy1vXbantPqjkjxajxdiBrPjzbGGqVtxy1cZK6lx09c zq7rv8qKg93SlWikP1/ZCFCReu97t982FSMWmwBy/F6rNra6k/CsrrwQEvH5zJy0 aOe/MdviWBcZmxBXJjWXaRahjcx9sWXFmT4IXBJWG9L6HCQBRVqpPjgmXIcii1BA FfKIDqJBK8PWHX4KRfgswIsJIY/2e+7a9a9VudaNVPTm3AB3Usw4CbWVoj+H6XU6 QyJnQw4FZZ6sTNFlcG/nQaa/omy1iT8NS6ABoRMjdHm0M+g7lqKyAUtYncC6zfbN ErOqnJc/COm0XwD7H4IE =OFEe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8i1HOXugmSQuWueLEopGDxqPBUDajpkQm--
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Sven Kieske <s.kieske@mittwald.de> wrote:
On 17/08/16 13:25, Nir Soffer wrote:
Only the owner of the bug knows if the all the required patches are merged and backported to the correct repositories.
Why not just set needinfo on bug assignee when all linked patches are merged? this would ensure that missing patches get uploaded asap and once this is done and all patches are merged you can clear needinfo and move the bug to modified manually?
You're optimistic that you'll get the info in time before a build. If you want a certain bug to be included in a release then you have to make sure that bug is on MODIFIED before build time, waiting on human to do instead of bot has its cons: - the person can be on PTO / Leave and won't see the email - thus a bug will miss a release - people miss emails all the time, especially if you have multiple work with bugzilla, I remember more than once bugs left with NEEDINFO for quite a long time. In the end, I think we should still make an effort to find the right logic to do with bot, keeping this task manual will cause more bugs to be left on POST from my experience (we used to do it in the past)
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Regards
Sven Kieske
Systemadministrator Mittwald CM Service GmbH & Co. KG Königsberger Straße 6 32339 Espelkamp T: +495772 293100 F: +495772 293333 https://www.mittwald.de Geschäftsführer: Robert Meyer St.Nr.: 331/5721/1033, USt-IdNr.: DE814773217, HRA 6640, AG Bad Oeynhausen Komplementärin: Robert Meyer Verwaltungs GmbH, HRB 13260, AG Bad Oeynhausen
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-- Eyal Edri Associate Manager RHV DevOps EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Red Hat Israel phone: +972-9-7692018 irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
I still thinks its a very valuable hook and we are aware of the fact it has bugs, especially with patches on master branch and 4.0.
Shlomi from the infra team is working on a solution for it as we speak and we hope to have a solution in the next few days, however it's not trival to test and requires setting up a staging env and improve loga for the hooks system.
How do you plan to solve this?
Only the owner of the bug knows if the all the required patches are merged
The authors should use Bug-Url on the main bug and related-to: on other patches that are related.
This is not possible. Many times you need series of patches to fix a bug, and you the number of patches may change during development. You start with one patch, and later you find that you need another one, so all of them will have a bug url. Practically, you should expect that all patches in the series will have a bug-url. If the hook will change the bug incorrectly someone will have to fix this, and it is very unlikely that a developer will go to clean after the hook.
and backported to the correct repositories.
This is done with logic according to the bug target milestone.
for e.g - a patch on branch 'ovirt-engine-4.0' was merged to bug targeted to ovirt-4.0.2. The hook should check if branch 4.0.2 exists or not, if it exists then the bug should NOT move to MODIFIED, since it needs still backporting to ovirt-engine-4.0.2 branch.
This is too fragile. For example, maybe a 4.0.2 branch is created after the patch was merged to 4.0 branch, and the patch will be missing, although the bug is already set to modified. Setting to modified should be done by the owner of the bug, after verifying that the patches exists in correct branch. I'm not suggesting to remove the hook, just disable the feature of making a bug modified. Nir
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
I still thinks its a very valuable hook and we are aware of the fact
it
has bugs, especially with patches on master branch and 4.0.
Shlomi from the infra team is working on a solution for it as we speak and we hope to have a solution in the next few days, however it's not trival to test and requires setting up a staging env and improve loga for the hooks system.
How do you plan to solve this?
Only the owner of the bug knows if the all the required patches are merged
The authors should use Bug-Url on the main bug and related-to: on other patches that are related.
This is not possible. Many times you need series of patches to fix a bug, and you the number of patches may change during development. You start with one patch, and later you find that you need another one, so all of them will have a bug url.
Practically, you should expect that all patches in the series will have a bug-url. If the hook will change the bug incorrectly someone will have to fix this, and it is very unlikely that a developer will go to clean after the hook.
and backported to the correct repositories.
This is done with logic according to the bug target milestone.
for e.g - a patch on branch 'ovirt-engine-4.0' was merged to bug targeted to ovirt-4.0.2. The hook should check if branch 4.0.2 exists or not, if it exists then the bug should NOT move to MODIFIED, since it needs still backporting to ovirt-engine-4.0.2 branch.
This is too fragile. For example, maybe a 4.0.2 branch is created after the patch was merged to 4.0 branch, and the patch will be missing, although the bug is already set to modified.
Setting to modified should be done by the owner of the bug, after verifying that the patches exists in correct branch.
I'm not suggesting to remove the hook, just disable the feature of making a bug modified.
+1. On build day checking that bugs in modified not listed in Bug-Url on the build branch due to missing backport is a painful experience.
Nir
-- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com
On 18 Aug 2016, at 09:09, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> = wrote: =20 =20 =20 On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com = <mailto:nsoffer@redhat.com>> wrote: On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com = <mailto:eedri@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com =
<mailto:nsoffer@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com =
<mailto:eedri@redhat.com>> wrote:
I still thinks its a very valuable hook and we are aware of the = fact it has bugs, especially with patches on master branch and 4.0.
Shlomi from the infra team is working on a solution for it as we = speak and we hope to have a solution in the next few days, however it's = not trival to test and requires setting up a staging env and improve loga for =
hooks system.
How do you plan to solve this?
Only the owner of the bug knows if the all the required patches are = merged
The authors should use Bug-Url on the main bug and related-to: on = other patches that are related. =20 This is not possible. Many times you need series of patches to fix a = bug, and you the number of patches may change during development. You start = with one patch, and later you find that you need another one, so all of them = will have a bug url. =20 Practically, you should expect that all patches in the series will have a bug-url. If the hook will change the bug incorrectly someone will have to fix =
it is very unlikely that a developer will go to clean after the hook. =20
and backported to the correct repositories.
This is done with logic according to the bug target milestone.
for e.g - a patch on branch 'ovirt-engine-4.0' was merged to bug = targeted to ovirt-4.0.2. The hook should check if branch 4.0.2 exists or not, if it exists =
--Apple-Mail=_745D14C7-E31B-46BD-9AD9-F1992E0F2C73 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 the this, and then the
bug should NOT move to MODIFIED, since it needs still backporting to ovirt-engine-4.0.2 branch. =20 This is too fragile. For example, maybe a 4.0.2 branch is created = after the patch was merged to 4.0 branch, and the patch will be missing, = although the bug is already set to modified. =20 Setting to modified should be done by the owner of the bug, after = verifying that the patches exists in correct branch. =20 I'm not suggesting to remove the hook, just disable the feature of = making a bug modified. =20 +1. On build day checking that bugs in modified not listed in Bug-Url = on the build branch due to missing backport is a painful experience.
it is a tradeoff. It was mentioned before that the other way around we = would be left with too many POSTed bugs which are actually already = merged. The maintainer is typically not the assignee so if you e.g. = merge the last patch on Thursday afternoon it takes some time to gets = attention, in the meantime there is a build which won=E2=80=99t consider = that bug.
=20 =20 =20 Nir =20 =20 =20 --=20 Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community =
collaboration. > See how it works at redhat.com <http://redhat.com/> > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--Apple-Mail=_745D14C7-E31B-46BD-9AD9-F1992E0F2C73 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html = charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; = -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" = class=3D""><br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div = class=3D"">On 18 Aug 2016, at 09:09, Sandro Bonazzola <<a = href=3D"mailto:sbonazzo@redhat.com" class=3D"">sbonazzo@redhat.com</a>>= wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div = dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><br class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br = class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:12 PM, = Nir Soffer <span dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><<a = href=3D"mailto:nsoffer@redhat.com" target=3D"_blank" = class=3D"">nsoffer@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br = class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 = .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On = Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Eyal Edri <<a = href=3D"mailto:eedri@redhat.com" class=3D"">eedri@redhat.com</a>> = wrote:<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Nir Soffer <<a = href=3D"mailto:nsoffer@redhat.com" class=3D"">nsoffer@redhat.com</a>> = wrote:<br class=3D""> >><br class=3D""> </span><span class=3D"">>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Eyal = Edri <<a href=3D"mailto:eedri@redhat.com" = class=3D"">eedri@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br class=3D""> >> > I still thinks its a very valuable hook and we are aware = of the fact it<br class=3D""> >> > has<br class=3D""> >> > bugs, especially with patches on master branch and = 4.0.<br class=3D""> >> ><br class=3D""> >> > Shlomi from the infra team is working on a solution for it = as we speak<br class=3D""> >> > and<br class=3D""> >> > we hope to have a solution in the next few days, = however it's not<br class=3D""> >> > trival to<br class=3D""> >> > test and requires setting up a staging env and improve = loga for the<br class=3D""> >> > hooks<br class=3D""> >> > system.<br class=3D""> >><br class=3D""> >> How do you plan to solve this?<br class=3D""> >><br class=3D""> </span><span class=3D"">>> Only the owner of the bug knows if the = all the required patches are merged<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> </span><span class=3D"">> The authors should use Bug-Url on the main = bug and related-to: on other<br class=3D""> > patches that are related.<br class=3D""> <br class=3D""> </span>This is not possible. Many times you need series of patches to = fix a bug, and<br class=3D""> you the number of patches may change during development. You start with = one<br class=3D""> patch, and later you find that you need another one, so all of them will = have<br class=3D""> a bug url.<br class=3D""> <br class=3D""> Practically, you should expect that all patches in the series will<br = class=3D""> have a bug-url.<br class=3D""> If the hook will change the bug incorrectly someone will have to fix = this, and<br class=3D""> it is very unlikely that a developer will go to clean after the hook.<br = class=3D""> <span class=3D""><br class=3D""> >> and backported to the correct repositories.<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> </span><span class=3D"">> This is done with logic according to the = bug target milestone.<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > for e.g - a patch on branch 'ovirt-engine-4.0' was merged to bug = targeted to<br class=3D""> > ovirt-4.0.2.<br class=3D""> > The hook should check if branch 4.0.2 exists or not, if it exists = then the<br class=3D""> > bug should NOT move to MODIFIED,<br class=3D""> > since it needs still backporting to ovirt-engine-4.0.2 branch.<br = class=3D""> <br class=3D""> </span>This is too fragile. For example, maybe a 4.0.2 branch is created = after<br class=3D""> the patch was merged to 4.0 branch, and the patch will be missing, = although<br class=3D""> the bug is already set to modified.<br class=3D""> <br class=3D""> Setting to modified should be done by the owner of the bug, after = verifying<br class=3D""> that the patches exists in correct branch.<br class=3D""> <br class=3D""> I'm not suggesting to remove the hook, just disable the feature of = making<br class=3D""> a bug modified.<br class=3D""></blockquote><div class=3D""><br = class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">+1. On build day checking that bugs in = modified not listed in Bug-Url on the build branch due to missing = backport is a painful = experience.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br = class=3D""></div>it is a tradeoff. It was mentioned before that the = other way around we would be left with too many POSTed bugs which are = actually already merged. The maintainer is typically not the assignee so = if you e.g. merge the last patch on Thursday afternoon it takes some = time to gets attention, in the meantime there is a build which won=E2=80=99= t consider that bug.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div><br = class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div = dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div = class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div = class=3D""> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0= 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888" class=3D""><br class=3D""> Nir<br class=3D""> </font></span></blockquote></div><br class=3D""><br clear=3D"all" = class=3D""><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div>-- <br class=3D""><div = class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div = dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">Sandro = Bonazzola<br class=3D"">Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by = community collaboration.<br class=3D"">See how it works at <a = href=3D"http://redhat.com/" target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">redhat.com</a><br= class=3D""></div></div></div></div> </div></div> _______________________________________________<br class=3D"">Devel = mailing list<br class=3D""><a href=3D"mailto:Devel@ovirt.org" = class=3D"">Devel@ovirt.org</a><br = class=3D"">http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</div></blockquote=
</div><br class=3D""></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_745D14C7-E31B-46BD-9AD9-F1992E0F2C73--
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Michal Skrivanek < michal.skrivanek@redhat.com> wrote:
On 18 Aug 2016, at 09:09, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
I still thinks its a very valuable hook and we are aware of the fact
it
has bugs, especially with patches on master branch and 4.0.
Shlomi from the infra team is working on a solution for it as we speak and we hope to have a solution in the next few days, however it's not trival to test and requires setting up a staging env and improve loga for the hooks system.
How do you plan to solve this?
Only the owner of the bug knows if the all the required patches are merged
The authors should use Bug-Url on the main bug and related-to: on other patches that are related.
This is not possible. Many times you need series of patches to fix a bug, and you the number of patches may change during development. You start with one patch, and later you find that you need another one, so all of them will have a bug url.
Practically, you should expect that all patches in the series will have a bug-url. If the hook will change the bug incorrectly someone will have to fix this, and it is very unlikely that a developer will go to clean after the hook.
and backported to the correct repositories.
This is done with logic according to the bug target milestone.
for e.g - a patch on branch 'ovirt-engine-4.0' was merged to bug targeted to ovirt-4.0.2. The hook should check if branch 4.0.2 exists or not, if it exists then the bug should NOT move to MODIFIED, since it needs still backporting to ovirt-engine-4.0.2 branch.
This is too fragile. For example, maybe a 4.0.2 branch is created after the patch was merged to 4.0 branch, and the patch will be missing, although the bug is already set to modified.
Setting to modified should be done by the owner of the bug, after verifying that the patches exists in correct branch.
I'm not suggesting to remove the hook, just disable the feature of making a bug modified.
+1. On build day checking that bugs in modified not listed in Bug-Url on the build branch due to missing backport is a painful experience.
it is a tradeoff. It was mentioned before that the other way around we would be left with too many POSTed bugs which are actually already merged. The maintainer is typically not the assignee so if you e.g. merge the last patch on Thursday afternoon it takes some time to gets attention, in the meantime there is a build which won’t consider that bug.
The other way around is having a modified bugs which should have been in post being considered in the build, moved to QE, failing QE, move back to assigned. Not sure it's much better.
Nir
-- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com
It will be very and and actually save the infra alot of coding and effort to stop using this hook, But I really think it will introduce another problem of bugs on POST. If we can find a logic that will be the silver bullet for all the use cases then lets do it, if not, we have to make sure ALL maintainers are aware they HAVE to monitor bugs in POST and move then on time, probably will need a WHINE also. On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Michal Skrivanek < michal.skrivanek@redhat.com> wrote:
On 18 Aug 2016, at 09:09, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
I still thinks its a very valuable hook and we are aware of the
fact it
has bugs, especially with patches on master branch and 4.0.
Shlomi from the infra team is working on a solution for it as we speak and we hope to have a solution in the next few days, however it's not trival to test and requires setting up a staging env and improve loga for the hooks system.
How do you plan to solve this?
Only the owner of the bug knows if the all the required patches are merged
The authors should use Bug-Url on the main bug and related-to: on other patches that are related.
This is not possible. Many times you need series of patches to fix a bug, and you the number of patches may change during development. You start with one patch, and later you find that you need another one, so all of them will have a bug url.
Practically, you should expect that all patches in the series will have a bug-url. If the hook will change the bug incorrectly someone will have to fix this, and it is very unlikely that a developer will go to clean after the hook.
and backported to the correct repositories.
This is done with logic according to the bug target milestone.
for e.g - a patch on branch 'ovirt-engine-4.0' was merged to bug targeted to ovirt-4.0.2. The hook should check if branch 4.0.2 exists or not, if it exists then the bug should NOT move to MODIFIED, since it needs still backporting to ovirt-engine-4.0.2 branch.
This is too fragile. For example, maybe a 4.0.2 branch is created after the patch was merged to 4.0 branch, and the patch will be missing, although the bug is already set to modified.
Setting to modified should be done by the owner of the bug, after verifying that the patches exists in correct branch.
I'm not suggesting to remove the hook, just disable the feature of making a bug modified.
+1. On build day checking that bugs in modified not listed in Bug-Url on the build branch due to missing backport is a painful experience.
it is a tradeoff. It was mentioned before that the other way around we would be left with too many POSTed bugs which are actually already merged
-- Eyal Edri Associate Manager RHV DevOps EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Red Hat Israel phone: +972-9-7692018 irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
It will be very and and actually save the infra alot of coding and effort to stop using this hook,
s very/very easy
But I really think it will introduce another problem of bugs on POST.
If we can find a logic that will be the silver bullet for all the use cases then lets do it, if not, we have to make sure ALL maintainers are aware they HAVE to monitor bugs in POST and move then on time, probably will need a WHINE also.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Michal Skrivanek < michal.skrivanek@redhat.com> wrote:
On 18 Aug 2016, at 09:09, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com>
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com>
wrote:
> I still thinks its a very valuable hook and we are aware of the fact it > has > bugs, especially with patches on master branch and 4.0. > > Shlomi from the infra team is working on a solution for it as we speak > and > we hope to have a solution in the next few days, however it's not > trival to > test and requires setting up a staging env and improve loga for
> hooks > system.
How do you plan to solve this?
Only the owner of the bug knows if the all the required patches are merged
The authors should use Bug-Url on the main bug and related-to: on other patches that are related.
This is not possible. Many times you need series of patches to fix a bug, and you the number of patches may change during development. You start with one patch, and later you find that you need another one, so all of them will have a bug url.
Practically, you should expect that all patches in the series will have a bug-url. If the hook will change the bug incorrectly someone will have to fix this, and it is very unlikely that a developer will go to clean after the hook.
and backported to the correct repositories.
This is done with logic according to the bug target milestone.
for e.g - a patch on branch 'ovirt-engine-4.0' was merged to bug targeted to ovirt-4.0.2. The hook should check if branch 4.0.2 exists or not, if it exists
wrote: the then
the
bug should NOT move to MODIFIED, since it needs still backporting to ovirt-engine-4.0.2 branch.
This is too fragile. For example, maybe a 4.0.2 branch is created after the patch was merged to 4.0 branch, and the patch will be missing, although the bug is already set to modified.
Setting to modified should be done by the owner of the bug, after verifying that the patches exists in correct branch.
I'm not suggesting to remove the hook, just disable the feature of making a bug modified.
+1. On build day checking that bugs in modified not listed in Bug-Url on the build branch due to missing backport is a painful experience.
it is a tradeoff. It was mentioned before that the other way around we would be left with too many POSTed bugs which are actually already merged
-- Eyal Edri Associate Manager RHV DevOps EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Red Hat Israel
phone: +972-9-7692018 irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
-- Eyal Edri Associate Manager RHV DevOps EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Red Hat Israel phone: +972-9-7692018 irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
On 18 Aug 2016, at 09:32, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> = wrote: =20 =20 =20 On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Michal Skrivanek = <michal.skrivanek@redhat.com <mailto:michal.skrivanek@redhat.com>> = wrote: =20
On 18 Aug 2016, at 09:09, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com = <mailto:sbonazzo@redhat.com>> wrote: =20 =20 =20 On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com = <mailto:nsoffer@redhat.com>> wrote: On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com = <mailto:eedri@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com =
<mailto:nsoffer@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com =
<mailto:eedri@redhat.com>> wrote:
I still thinks its a very valuable hook and we are aware of the = fact it has bugs, especially with patches on master branch and 4.0.
Shlomi from the infra team is working on a solution for it as we = speak and we hope to have a solution in the next few days, however it's = not trival to test and requires setting up a staging env and improve loga for =
hooks system.
How do you plan to solve this?
Only the owner of the bug knows if the all the required patches = are merged
The authors should use Bug-Url on the main bug and related-to: on = other patches that are related. =20 This is not possible. Many times you need series of patches to fix a = bug, and you the number of patches may change during development. You start = with one patch, and later you find that you need another one, so all of them = will have a bug url. =20 Practically, you should expect that all patches in the series will have a bug-url. If the hook will change the bug incorrectly someone will have to fix =
it is very unlikely that a developer will go to clean after the hook. =20
and backported to the correct repositories.
This is done with logic according to the bug target milestone.
for e.g - a patch on branch 'ovirt-engine-4.0' was merged to bug = targeted to ovirt-4.0.2. The hook should check if branch 4.0.2 exists or not, if it exists =
bug should NOT move to MODIFIED, since it needs still backporting to ovirt-engine-4.0.2 branch. =20 This is too fragile. For example, maybe a 4.0.2 branch is created = after the patch was merged to 4.0 branch, and the patch will be missing, = although the bug is already set to modified. =20 Setting to modified should be done by the owner of the bug, after = verifying that the patches exists in correct branch. =20 I'm not suggesting to remove the hook, just disable the feature of = making a bug modified. =20 +1. On build day checking that bugs in modified not listed in Bug-Url = on the build branch due to missing backport is a painful experience. =20 it is a tradeoff. It was mentioned before that the other way around we = would be left with too many POSTed bugs which are actually already = merged. The maintainer is typically not the assignee so if you e.g. = merge the last patch on Thursday afternoon it takes some time to gets = attention, in the meantime there is a build which won=E2=80=99t consider =
--Apple-Mail=_B5C5EE46-B870-4828-AD47-B51209767DB1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 the this, and then the that bug.
=20 =20 The other way around is having a modified bugs which should have been = in post being considered in the build, moved to QE, failing QE, move = back to assigned. Not sure it's much better.
it is when the amount of false positive ON_QA bugs is far less than = amount of forgotten bugs I=E2=80=99m not advocating for it, I=E2=80=99m just saying it was = pointed out that this was the situation before we introduced the hook. Perhaps with the doc police emails it is no longer a relevant point Thanks, michal
=20 =20 =20 =20
=20 =20 =20 Nir =20 =20 =20 --=20 Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community =
collaboration. >> See how it works at redhat.com <http://redhat.com/> >> _______________________________________________ >> Devel mailing list >> Devel@ovirt.org <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org> >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel = <http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel> >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Sandro Bonazzola > Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community = collaboration. > See how it works at redhat.com <http://redhat.com/>
--Apple-Mail=_B5C5EE46-B870-4828-AD47-B51209767DB1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html = charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; = -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" = class=3D""><br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div = class=3D"">On 18 Aug 2016, at 09:32, Sandro Bonazzola <<a = href=3D"mailto:sbonazzo@redhat.com" class=3D"">sbonazzo@redhat.com</a>>= wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div = dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><br class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br = class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:19 AM, = Michal Skrivanek <span dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><<a = href=3D"mailto:michal.skrivanek@redhat.com" target=3D"_blank" = class=3D"">michal.skrivanek@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br = class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 = .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div = style=3D"word-wrap:break-word" class=3D""><br class=3D""><div = class=3D""><div class=3D""><div class=3D"h5"><blockquote type=3D"cite" = class=3D""><div class=3D"">On 18 Aug 2016, at 09:09, Sandro Bonazzola = <<a href=3D"mailto:sbonazzo@redhat.com" target=3D"_blank" = class=3D"">sbonazzo@redhat.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class=3D""><div = class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><br class=3D""><div = class=3D"gmail_extra"><br class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, = Aug 17, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Nir Soffer <span dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><<a = href=3D"mailto:nsoffer@redhat.com" target=3D"_blank" = class=3D"">nsoffer@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br = class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 = .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On = Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Eyal Edri <<a = href=3D"mailto:eedri@redhat.com" target=3D"_blank" = class=3D"">eedri@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Nir Soffer <<a = href=3D"mailto:nsoffer@redhat.com" target=3D"_blank" = class=3D"">nsoffer@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br class=3D""> >><br class=3D""> </span><span class=3D"">>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Eyal = Edri <<a href=3D"mailto:eedri@redhat.com" target=3D"_blank" = class=3D"">eedri@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br class=3D""> >> > I still thinks its a very valuable hook and we are aware = of the fact it<br class=3D""> >> > has<br class=3D""> >> > bugs, especially with patches on master branch and = 4.0.<br class=3D""> >> ><br class=3D""> >> > Shlomi from the infra team is working on a solution for it = as we speak<br class=3D""> >> > and<br class=3D""> >> > we hope to have a solution in the next few days, = however it's not<br class=3D""> >> > trival to<br class=3D""> >> > test and requires setting up a staging env and improve = loga for the<br class=3D""> >> > hooks<br class=3D""> >> > system.<br class=3D""> >><br class=3D""> >> How do you plan to solve this?<br class=3D""> >><br class=3D""> </span><span class=3D"">>> Only the owner of the bug knows if the = all the required patches are merged<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> </span><span class=3D"">> The authors should use Bug-Url on the main = bug and related-to: on other<br class=3D""> > patches that are related.<br class=3D""> <br class=3D""> </span>This is not possible. Many times you need series of patches to = fix a bug, and<br class=3D""> you the number of patches may change during development. You start with = one<br class=3D""> patch, and later you find that you need another one, so all of them will = have<br class=3D""> a bug url.<br class=3D""> <br class=3D""> Practically, you should expect that all patches in the series will<br = class=3D""> have a bug-url.<br class=3D""> If the hook will change the bug incorrectly someone will have to fix = this, and<br class=3D""> it is very unlikely that a developer will go to clean after the hook.<br = class=3D""> <span class=3D""><br class=3D""> >> and backported to the correct repositories.<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> </span><span class=3D"">> This is done with logic according to the = bug target milestone.<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > for e.g - a patch on branch 'ovirt-engine-4.0' was merged to bug = targeted to<br class=3D""> > ovirt-4.0.2.<br class=3D""> > The hook should check if branch 4.0.2 exists or not, if it exists = then the<br class=3D""> > bug should NOT move to MODIFIED,<br class=3D""> > since it needs still backporting to ovirt-engine-4.0.2 branch.<br = class=3D""> <br class=3D""> </span>This is too fragile. For example, maybe a 4.0.2 branch is created = after<br class=3D""> the patch was merged to 4.0 branch, and the patch will be missing, = although<br class=3D""> the bug is already set to modified.<br class=3D""> <br class=3D""> Setting to modified should be done by the owner of the bug, after = verifying<br class=3D""> that the patches exists in correct branch.<br class=3D""> <br class=3D""> I'm not suggesting to remove the hook, just disable the feature of = making<br class=3D""> a bug modified.<br class=3D""></blockquote><div class=3D""><br = class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">+1. On build day checking that bugs in = modified not listed in Bug-Url on the build branch due to missing = backport is a painful = experience.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=3D""><br = class=3D""></div></div></div>it is a tradeoff. It was mentioned before = that the other way around we would be left with too many POSTed bugs = which are actually already merged. The maintainer is typically not the = assignee so if you e.g. merge the last patch on Thursday afternoon it = takes some time to gets attention, in the meantime there is a build = which won=E2=80=99t consider that bug.</div><div class=3D""><br = class=3D""></div></div></blockquote><div class=3D""><br = class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">The other way around is having a = modified bugs which should have been in post being considered in the = build, moved to QE, failing QE, move back to assigned.</div><div = class=3D"">Not sure it's much = better.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br = class=3D""></div>it is when the amount of false positive ON_QA bugs is = far less than amount of forgotten bugs</div><div>I=E2=80=99m not = advocating for it, I=E2=80=99m just saying it was pointed out that this = was the situation before we introduced the hook.</div><div>Perhaps with = the doc police emails it is no longer a relevant point</div><div><br = class=3D""></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>michal</div><div><br = class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div = dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div = class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div = class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""> </div><blockquote = class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc = solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word" = class=3D""><div class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br = class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><span = class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div = class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div = class=3D""> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0= 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <span class=3D""><font color=3D"#888888" class=3D""><br class=3D""> Nir<br class=3D""> </font></span></blockquote></div><br class=3D""><br clear=3D"all" = class=3D""><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div>-- <br class=3D""><div = data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature" class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" = class=3D""><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">Sandro = Bonazzola<br class=3D"">Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by = community collaboration.<br class=3D"">See how it works at <a = href=3D"http://redhat.com/" target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">redhat.com</a><br= class=3D""></div></div></div></div> </div></div></span><span class=3D""> ______________________________<wbr class=3D"">_________________<br = class=3D"">Devel mailing list<br class=3D""><a = href=3D"mailto:Devel@ovirt.org" target=3D"_blank" = class=3D"">Devel@ovirt.org</a><br class=3D""><a = href=3D"http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel" target=3D"_blank" = class=3D"">http://lists.ovirt.org/<wbr = class=3D"">mailman/listinfo/devel</a></span></div></blockquote></div><br = class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""><br clear=3D"all" = class=3D""><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div>-- <br class=3D""><div = class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div = dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">Sandro = Bonazzola<br class=3D"">Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by = community collaboration.<br class=3D"">See how it works at <a = href=3D"http://redhat.com/" target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">redhat.com</a><br= class=3D""></div></div></div></div> </div></div> </div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></body></html>= --Apple-Mail=_B5C5EE46-B870-4828-AD47-B51209767DB1--
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Michal Skrivanek < michal.skrivanek@redhat.com> wrote:
On 18 Aug 2016, at 09:32, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Michal Skrivanek < michal.skrivanek@redhat.com> wrote:
On 18 Aug 2016, at 09:09, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
I still thinks its a very valuable hook and we are aware of the
fact it
has bugs, especially with patches on master branch and 4.0.
Shlomi from the infra team is working on a solution for it as we speak and we hope to have a solution in the next few days, however it's not trival to test and requires setting up a staging env and improve loga for the hooks system.
How do you plan to solve this?
Only the owner of the bug knows if the all the required patches are merged
The authors should use Bug-Url on the main bug and related-to: on other patches that are related.
This is not possible. Many times you need series of patches to fix a bug, and you the number of patches may change during development. You start with one patch, and later you find that you need another one, so all of them will have a bug url.
Practically, you should expect that all patches in the series will have a bug-url. If the hook will change the bug incorrectly someone will have to fix this, and it is very unlikely that a developer will go to clean after the hook.
and backported to the correct repositories.
This is done with logic according to the bug target milestone.
for e.g - a patch on branch 'ovirt-engine-4.0' was merged to bug targeted to ovirt-4.0.2. The hook should check if branch 4.0.2 exists or not, if it exists then the bug should NOT move to MODIFIED, since it needs still backporting to ovirt-engine-4.0.2 branch.
This is too fragile. For example, maybe a 4.0.2 branch is created after the patch was merged to 4.0 branch, and the patch will be missing, although the bug is already set to modified.
Setting to modified should be done by the owner of the bug, after verifying that the patches exists in correct branch.
I'm not suggesting to remove the hook, just disable the feature of making a bug modified.
+1. On build day checking that bugs in modified not listed in Bug-Url on the build branch due to missing backport is a painful experience.
it is a tradeoff. It was mentioned before that the other way around we would be left with too many POSTed bugs which are actually already merged. The maintainer is typically not the assignee so if you e.g. merge the last patch on Thursday afternoon it takes some time to gets attention, in the meantime there is a build which won’t consider that bug.
The other way around is having a modified bugs which should have been in post being considered in the build, moved to QE, failing QE, move back to assigned. Not sure it's much better.
it is when the amount of false positive ON_QA bugs is far less than amount of forgotten bugs I’m not advocating for it, I’m just saying it was pointed out that this was the situation before we introduced the hook. Perhaps with the doc police emails it is no longer a relevant point
Do we have a list of number of bugs that actually failed ON_QA due to this?
Thanks, michal
Nir
-- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-- Eyal Edri Associate Manager RHV DevOps EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Red Hat Israel phone: +972-9-7692018 irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Michal Skrivanek < michal.skrivanek@redhat.com> wrote:
On 18 Aug 2016, at 09:32, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Michal Skrivanek < michal.skrivanek@redhat.com> wrote:
On 18 Aug 2016, at 09:09, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote: > I still thinks its a very valuable hook and we are aware of the
fact it
> has > bugs, especially with patches on master branch and 4.0. > > Shlomi from the infra team is working on a solution for it as we speak > and > we hope to have a solution in the next few days, however it's not > trival to > test and requires setting up a staging env and improve loga for the > hooks > system.
How do you plan to solve this?
Only the owner of the bug knows if the all the required patches are merged
The authors should use Bug-Url on the main bug and related-to: on other patches that are related.
This is not possible. Many times you need series of patches to fix a bug, and you the number of patches may change during development. You start with one patch, and later you find that you need another one, so all of them will have a bug url.
Practically, you should expect that all patches in the series will have a bug-url. If the hook will change the bug incorrectly someone will have to fix this, and it is very unlikely that a developer will go to clean after the hook.
and backported to the correct repositories.
This is done with logic according to the bug target milestone.
for e.g - a patch on branch 'ovirt-engine-4.0' was merged to bug targeted to ovirt-4.0.2. The hook should check if branch 4.0.2 exists or not, if it exists then the bug should NOT move to MODIFIED, since it needs still backporting to ovirt-engine-4.0.2 branch.
This is too fragile. For example, maybe a 4.0.2 branch is created after the patch was merged to 4.0 branch, and the patch will be missing, although the bug is already set to modified.
Setting to modified should be done by the owner of the bug, after verifying that the patches exists in correct branch.
I'm not suggesting to remove the hook, just disable the feature of making a bug modified.
+1. On build day checking that bugs in modified not listed in Bug-Url on the build branch due to missing backport is a painful experience.
it is a tradeoff. It was mentioned before that the other way around we would be left with too many POSTed bugs which are actually already merged. The maintainer is typically not the assignee so if you e.g. merge the last patch on Thursday afternoon it takes some time to gets attention, in the meantime there is a build which won’t consider that bug.
The other way around is having a modified bugs which should have been in post being considered in the build, moved to QE, failing QE, move back to assigned. Not sure it's much better.
it is when the amount of false positive ON_QA bugs is far less than amount of forgotten bugs I’m not advocating for it, I’m just saying it was pointed out that this was the situation before we introduced the hook. Perhaps with the doc police emails it is no longer a relevant point
Do we have a list of number of bugs that actually failed ON_QA due to this?
No I haven't
Thanks, michal
Nir
-- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-- Eyal Edri Associate Manager RHV DevOps EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Red Hat Israel
phone: +972-9-7692018 irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
-- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com <https://www.redhat.com/it/about/events/red-hat-open-source-day-2016>
Hi All, I'm currently working to solve this issue. I will update you when done :) Best Regards, Shlomi Ben-David | Software Engineer | Red Hat ISRAEL Red Hat Certified System Administrator | Red Hat Certified Engineer IRC: shlomibendavid (on #rhev-integ, #rhev-dev, #rhev-ci) OPEN SOURCE - 1 4 011 && 011 4 1 On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi all,
We currently have a bot that automatically moves bugs from POST to MODIFIED if all linked patches on gerrit are merged.
It happened to me personally several times that this was a wrong thing to do, either because a new patch was still needed but not pushed yet, or because an existing patch should have been back-ported to another branch and wasn't yet. Since I usually pay more attention to my bug in POST, I sometimes missed this and handled the missing patches (backports, usually) later than I could if left on POST.
I have a feeling I am not the only one. So I suggest to stop doing this.
I can think of several alternatives:
1. Do nothing. I think that's reasonable - I think most people pay more attention to POST bugs anyway.
2. Set needinfo on bug owner.
3. Send some alert email to relevant people (bug owner, existing patches owners, perhaps others - e.g. reviewers of existing patches, perhaps those that actually reviewed, etc.). Need to think how to make it not too annoying for others but still effective also if owner is on long PTO or something like that. New flag doesn't have to be very specific - can be called something like 'attention needed' or something like that.
4. Add a new flag for that and set it. This will allow easier filtering/reporting.
What do you think? -- Didi _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
participants (8)
-
Eli Mesika -
Eyal Edri -
Michal Skrivanek -
Nir Soffer -
Sandro Bonazzola -
Shlomo Ben David -
Sven Kieske -
Yedidyah Bar David