[llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

[Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev]

https://gcc.gnu.org/viewvc/gcc/hooks/

is how it was done.

This used the incoming email handling for bugzilla i set up.

These days, you could just use bugzilla's rest API

IE a simple variant of
https://github.com/mozilla/github-bugzilla-pr-linker/blob/master/app/app.py
should work as a commit hook.

That thing is written as a service, you just need the find/add parts of the
rest api, rip them out, and use it as a post-commit hook.



On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:49 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nah, don't think we've ever had that in LLVM - certainly would be nice to
> have :)
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:48 PM Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Isn't svn set up to auto-parse and post to the bug so you can just say
>> "fixes bug 44444" and it parses it out?
>>
>> I mean, i added that to gcc like 15 years ago, i'm surprised we don't do
>> this :)
>>
>> Nobody should have to add this info manually unless someone forgot to put
>> it in a commit message.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/12/2018 07:51 AM, via llvm-dev wrote:
>>> > TL;DR: It's okay to close a bug, if you can justify it properly.
>>> >
>>> > Recently there has been a spate of bug-closing with what I would call
>>> > inadequate documentation.  Comments such as "Obsolete?" or "I assume
>>> > it's fixed" could be applied to nearly every open bug we have.  While
>>> > this does reduce the open bug count--something I have been watching
>>> > with morbid fascination for years--I do fear that the reduction is
>>> > potentially artificial, and incorrectly puts the onus on the original
>>> > bug author to reopen the case.
>>> >
>>> > I suggest that closing a bug can be done IF AND ONLY IF you also state
>>> > one of the following:
>>> > - that revision NNNNNN actually fixed the bug
>>>
>>> There is a field in bugzilla called "Fixed By Commits" that I added
>>> specifically for this information.
>>>
>>> -Tom
>>>
>>> > - that the bug cannot be reproduced with revision NNNNNN
>>> > - that the circumstances for the bug don't apply anymore; e.g.,
>>> >   "This is about the makefiles and we don't use makefiles anymore."
>>> > - sound reasons for not fixing something (WONTFIX)
>>> > - some specific and plausible reason to think that a given bug is
>>> >   otherwise inapplicable or obsolete
>>> >
>>> > In particular, "Obsolete?" and "I assume it's fixed" are NOT enough
>>> > justification to close a bug.
>>> >
>>> > If people are okay with this, I'd expect adding a new section to the
>>> > Developer Policy is probably the right place to put it.
>>> >
>>> > Comments/brickbats welcome...
>>> > --paulr
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180612/8ac3c756/attachment.html>