On 2.4.2015 01:58, Adam Williamson wrote: > 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. Which is IMHO a Good Thing. I personally add needinfo? to closed bugs when I need to get more information about the issue, e.g. when writing a test for it or so. -- Petr Spacek @ Red Hat -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
