On 10/19/2010 04:57 PM, Kamil Paral wrote: > ----- "Sandro \"red\" Mathys" <red@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> List of ON_QA bugs - http://bit.ly/dx4ehO >> >> [16:17:55] <red_alert> many of those ON_QA bugs have been VERIFIED >> before bodhi changed it back [to ON_QA]...do we need to re-test >> those? >> >> >> [16:19:47] <jlaska> red_alert: I think that's a really good >> discussion >> for the list. kparal mentioned that earlier, let's discuss it there >> so >> others can benefit as well >> >> ##### >> >> I've often seen people setting the status back to VERIFIED in such a >> case but I'm not exactly sure if that's the best possible behavior. >> >> So, does it make sense to re-test fixes because the newly pushed >> version >> might have broken things again or do we generally assume that fixes >> included in older versions are still working in newer versions? >> >> IMHO it doesn't make sense to re-test again. There'll always be newer >> versions and we can't always re-test every bug with every new >> version. >> >> +1 for just setting back to VERIFIED again > > > It's a little more complicated. Let's suppose we have bug #1234 and > foobar-1.1 claims to fix it. If you post proposed update to Bodhi > and fill into details that it fixes #1234, then Bodhi will set > #1234 to ON_QA. Some tester will test that and will set the status > to VERIFIED. > > Now, there was some serious issue with foobar-1.1, unrelated to > #1234. The developer will *unpush* that proposed update, create > foobar-1.2 and post it to proposed updates again. Because there > is still no foobar update released that would fix #1234, the > developer will again mark foobar-1.2 as fixing #1234. Bodhi will > change #1234 back from VERIFIED to ON_QA. This is correct, because > although foobar-1.1 is verified to fix that issue, there were some > additional changes that could negatively impact that fix. So the > tester should test foobar-1.2 and mark #1234 as VERIFIED again, > if everything works ok. > > On the other hand, let's suppose that foobar-1.1 was released > and pushed into 'updates' repository. Now, when the developer > creates foobar-1.2, he *should not* mark bug #1234 as being fixed > by foobar-1.2. That was was already fixed by foobar-1.1 and the fix > was *released*. If such event happens (developer mistakenly marks > foobar-1.2 as fixing #1234 and Bodhi sets the bug again to ON_QA), > there is really no need to test it again. We can set it back to > VERIFIED. > > I think I have described how it should work. But maybe I'm wrong. > Does it make sense? What do you think? Right, I never thought about unpushed updates (i.e. I hardly ever met such cases yet). So I think we need to quickly check the details in bodhi and then either re-test or (in most cases) set it back to VERIFIED. Is that about it or is it more complicated? :) -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
