----- Original Message ----- > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Christoph Wickert > <christoph.wickert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Despite of the question whether it's right or wrong it's a manual > > process and we cannot rely it really happens. On the other hand > > changing > > the script to not close any bugs which are ON_QA is easy. > > > > So what is so bad about ignoring bugs MODIFIED and/or ON_QA bugs? > > This is a corner case perhaps, but those bugs still need closing at > some point. If an updates-testing package gets un-pushed or never > gets > sent to stable the bug will never be closed. That's my main concern too. There are more states - I'm on edge even more - for example for VERIFIED. But looking on how often and how it's used (outside blocker bugs QA process) - it's again just adding complexity and manual fix could be quick (and also pings people to take a look on the correct state). As Adam pointed out - Bugzilla is not a best tool. The script I was given is neither a state of the art. Definitely it could be enhanced - semi-atomic operations to avoid conflicts, more clever work with BZ states. But more complexity means more BZ resources and especially in the last times BZ performance sucks (script has a sleep after every 10 bugs, still the reporting takes a whole day). Let me try another thing - at DevConf there are people responsible for BZ processes - maybe we can find a way how to make the EOL thing more doable and not destroying BZ experience for everyone ;-) Jaroslav > That means that the > script would need another rule that it _also_ closes bugs for the > release before regardless of MODIFIED/ON_QA. > > -- > There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand > binary > and those who don't... > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
