[llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

[via llvm-dev]

That solution semi-automates the first item in my list, and sounds like a great idea.
We still have the other 4 cases.
--paulr

From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 1:11 AM
To: David Blaikie
Cc: llvm-dev
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20180613/0bee94a1/attachment-0001.html>