> > On 06/10/16 13:26, Conselvan De Oliveira, Ander wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 13:11 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Wed, 05 Oct 2016, "Argotti, Yann" <yann.argotti@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2016, Jairo Miramontes > >>>>> <jairo.daniel.miramontes.caton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This week regressions > >>>>> In the past we used "regression", "bisect_pending", and "bisected" > >>>>> in the bugzilla "Keywords" field. Can we start using those again, > please? > >>>> I think this is a very good idea Jani. So we can start to scrub > >>>> current regression (and then igt linked one) and update > accordingly. > >>>> Yann > >>> Two additional thoughts are: > >>> - add "regression_pending" (vs "regression") as well as keyword to > >>> indicate where bug reporter has doubt on the fact it is or not a > >>> regression. > >> I think it should be enough, at least for a start (or should I say > >> re-start), to freely use "regression" when things worked in the past > >> but do not work anymore. We can then drop the keyword if it's not > >> proven to be a regression. > >> > >> No strong feelings on "regression_pending", though. But I don't think > >> you can add keywords at will, I think the field only accepts a > >> predefined set of keywords. So you'd need to talk to Ander or Martin > >> (Cc'd) to get the new one to bugzilla. > > > > I don't have admin access in bugzilla, so I would just forward such > > requests to Martin. > > Just tell me what you need when you all agree on the name :) Thanks Martin. Ok, so let use what it is already set, "re-starting" with "regression" key word but ensuring that use of this keyword is done simultaneously with good & bad commit id to brace that statement. Yann _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
