On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 13:56 -0400, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > Humans I can > > understand having different views, but the tools should provide > > the humans with > > what we need here. In this case I think that means one of the > > following: > > > > 1) Require that the bot ignore bugs that are closed (assuming a > > majority > > consensus agrees, which I understand isn't likely to happen) > > > > 2) Require that the bot be configurable by individuals to > > optionally ignore > > (1) > > Surely the right thing is to not have any “unreviewed” patches in a > closed bug by the time the bug is closed. (New unreviewed patches > could arrive after the bug has been closed, same as new comments, > but that is AFAICS not the situation prompting this thread.) > Ignoring the inconsistent state of unreviewed patches in a closed > bug is at best a band-aid. > > If we modify bugzilla at all, I would suggest to modify it as to > resolve the review flags in patches while closing a bug (by marking > them as reviewed, as refused, by dropping the review=? flags, or > perhaps by saking). The mails do not just cover patch review. They cover the 'needinfo' state as well: you get a reminder for any bug which has a 'needinfo' flag set for you. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
