On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Matt Benjamin wrote:
> > We regularly in RGW do use:
> >
> > Testing -- PR is approved but waiting for or waiting on test runs
> > Need Test -- PR submitted but needs unit tests
>
> IMO the needs-* flags make a lot of sense to me for PRs; I'm not sure
> they're as helpful in the tracker since it is a lot of work to keep the PR
> state and the tracker state in sync...
>
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 1:30 PM Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently we have these open statuses:
> > >
> > > New
> > > Triaged
> > > Verified
> > > Need More Info
> > > In Progress
> > > Feedback
> > > Need Review
> > > Need Test
> > > Testing
> > > Pending Backport
> > > Pending Upstream
> > >
> > > It seems to me many of these are mostly unused making their presence
> > > confusing to newcomers. I propose we prune these down to:
> > >
> > > New: default for new trackers; ideally this list should be short and
> > > regularly looked at.
> > > Triaged: it's been looked at by PTL/team member and could be assigned out.
>
> +1 on dropping/combining Verfied with Triaged. Also +1 on dropping
> Feedback.
>
> > > Need More Info: can't be worked on without more information
> > > In Progress: assignee is working on the ticket.
> > > Need Review: upstream PR ready for review
>
> In practice I find the Need Review/Need Test/Testing to be ambiguous.. the
> tracker state rarely reflects the actual state of the bug/PR becuase
> sometimes the developer is doing the testing and sometimes someone else
> is. I'd be happy with something the captures all three (Review/Test)?
>
> > > Pending Backport: upstream PR merged; backports are pending.
>
> Historically Pending Upstream has meant that hte bug is related to an
> external project and we're just waiting on distro/kernel/whatever to
> get the fix. This generally means it's not actually a ceph bug; having
> it in the state just makes it easier to find the bug when trying to
> understand why you're (still) seeing some failure. Okay to drop it, or
> maybe we can rename it to something that more clearly indicates that we're
> waiting on some external project to apply a fix.
We are using Pending Upstream in the kernel client for patches that
are pending merge to Linus' tree, so in some sense it is used for ceph
bugs. I'm fine with dropping it since it would be covered by the
Review/Test state (generally patches are sitting in our testing branch
until they are picked up), but FWIW I don't find its name confusing.
Thanks,
Ilya
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
