On 2014-07-17 18:10, Kaushal M wrote: > "Bugs"/"bug" in the documents are not really what you think they mean. > > We use bugzilla to track glusterfs development. It is used for track > defects (bugs) in the software, enhancements and new features. What we > really mean by a patch needs a bug id is that we need it to have an > entry on bugzilla, so that it's lifecycle can be tracked correctly. So > bug just means bugzilla entry. You have bug "bugs", enhancement > "bugs", feature request "bugs" and so on. > > tl;dr: "bug" == bugzilla entry. OK. would be nice to have a link back to the bugzilla from gerrit by the way, cut and paste of the bug number is somewhat error-prone :-( > > > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Anders Blomdell > <anders.blomdell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 2014-07-17 15:44, Kaushal M wrote: >>> I don't understand your confusion, but maybe these docs need to be reworded. >> Not confused, just observed that some of my patches regarding development >> workflow does not need to show up as bugs for gluster (at least not until >> somebody has verified that they could be useful to somebody else but me). >> >>> What both of these want to say is that for a patch to be merged into >>> glusterfs, it needs to be associated with a bug-id. This association >>> is done by adding a 'BUG: <id>' line in the commit message. If you >>> haven't manually added a bug-id in the commit message, the rfc.sh >>> script will prompt you to enter one and add it to the commit-message. >>> But, it is possible ignore this prompt and submit a patch for review. >>> A patch submitted for review in this manner will only be reviewed. It >>> will not be merged. >>> >>> The simplified workflow document doesn't mention this as it was >>> targeted at new developers, and I felt having this details was TMI for >>> them. But now when I rethink it, it's the seasoned developers who are >>> beginning to contribute to gluster, who are more likely to use that >> s/seasoned developers/ignorant old fools/g :-) >> >>> doc. >>> >>> ~kaushal >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Anders Blomdell >>> <anders.blomdell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> ...and I'm sorry about that, the following documents are somewhat contradictory: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Simplified_dev_workflow >>>> >>>> The script will ask you to enter a bugzilla bug id. Every >>>> change submitted to GlusterFS needs a bugzilla entry to be >>>> accepted. If you do not already have a bug id, file a new >>>> bug at Red Hat Bugzilla. If the patch is submitted for review, >>>> the rfc.sh script will return the gerrit url for the review request. >>>> >>>> >>>> www.gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Development_Work_Flow >>>> >>>> Prompt for a Bug Id for each commit (if it was not already provded) and >>>> include it as a "BUG:" tag in the commit log. You can just hit <enter> at >>>> this prompt if your submission is purely for review purposes. /Anders -- Anders Blomdell Email: anders.blomdell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Department of Automatic Control Lund University Phone: +46 46 222 4625 P.O. Box 118 Fax: +46 46 138118 SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
