On 18/02/13 12:03 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 07:12:01AM -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
As you can see the bugs were already ON_QA before they were closed
WONTFIX.
But for F16 - it's true - the fix is not going to be available in F16,
thus WONTFIX. Correct resolution is to bump version to F17/F18 or clone bugs.
If that's the case, what does "NEXTRELEASE" mean in bugzilla? "Not fixed for
the version it was reported against but was actually fixed" seems like
_useful data_.
Again, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#CLOSED :
"The resolution NEXTRELEASE is for use by maintainers only. It is used
if a bug was filed for a given release, but will only be fixed for later
releases - for instance, if a bug is filed in the current stable
release, but the maintainer only thinks it safe or worthwhile to fix it
in Rawhide and future releases, not the release on which it was reported."
So, theoretically, it means what you think it means.
As I always say, though, note that I wrote that policy based on my best
understanding of the _most common_ current practice in BZ at the time,
and I submitted it for review, and it got comparatively few comments
when you consider just how many package maintainers there are in Fedora.
There is no mechanism to enforce compliance with the policy, and many
maintainers do not do things exactly as the policy says, and indeed even
some of our official tools don't always follow the policy (*koff koff*
bodhi *koff koff*). So it's more of a 'general guideline'. =) But that's
what it Officially Means.
Proposed modifications to the policy are of course welcome.
There are lots of workflow problems with Bugzilla as a distribution bug
tracker, really, if you sit down and think about it for a while (as I
have). Bugzilla was designed for Mozilla and it really doesn't apply
perfectly to maintaining a distribution with the complications of
'distro version and release vs. package version and release' and the
issues of upstream versus downstream and maintaining multiple releases
at a time and all sorts of stuff. Given this, I find the best policy is
just to go with whatever more or less works and not sweat strict policy
compliance or cases of slightly-overenthusiastic scripts like this _too_
much: so long as we're using Bugzilla, things will always be something
of a hack job, so just relax and live with it. If a bug doesn't use the
correct resolution, it's usually not the end of the world. If your bug
gets closed when it shouldn't, shrug and re-open it. At some point we
might all get sufficiently p*ed off with Bugzilla (and sharing BZ with
all of Red Hat's products...) to suffer the massive pain of some kind of
radical effort to improve the process - switch to another bug tracker,
or make some major changes to BZ - but I doubt that'll be any time soon.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
