automation wrongly moving bugs to MODIFIED

[Eyal Edri]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi at redhat.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Eyal Edri <eedri at redhat.com> wrote:
> > indeed.
> > we need to decide here what automation we want (each flow has its cons &
> > pros)
> >
> > moving bugs from POST->MODIFIED
> >   - pros
> >         - bugs are not forgotten on POST and waiting for manual action,
> > leaving possibility of not moving to ON_QA on a release even though they
> are
> > fixed.
>
> I think it's still a bit risky and should be left for a human. At least as
> long
> as we do not do TDD.
>
> >
> >  - cons
> >         - bot can't know if bug is solved completely and more patches are
> > coming.
> >
> >
> > solution:
> >             - use bug-url ONLY in the main patch that when its merged
> then
> > bug will move to MODIFIED, all other patches should use related-to: (we
> can
> > ensure bug won't change status for related to patches)
>
> I can live with this, but as I wrote in another mail in this thread, I
> think
> that's a bit overloading the meaning of Related-To.
>
> >
> >
> > moving MODIFIED->POST
> >       - i think in any case we should stop doing this, and its the
> > maintainer responsibility to move it back to POST if he didn't add all
> > patches.
>
> Really? Do you see any risk in moving to POST?
>

yes. we talked in the past about bots moving statues back,
and it should be left for human - i don't see a reason why this should be
different.
but we can bring it up for discussion, a change in hooks affects everyone
and
not to be decided on a mail thread


> --
> Didi
>



-- 
Eyal Edri
Supervisor, RHEV CI
EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Red Hat Israel

phone: +972-9-7692018
irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/infra/attachments/20151117/0890f21f/attachment.html>