You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@trafficserver.apache.org by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> on 2012/04/26 16:36:49 UTC
Backports
Hi all,
James suggested a while ago that we change how we deal with backported bugs.
I agree with him that our system of closing, reopening, reassigning etc. is
not only complicated, but difficult to follow.
His suggestion was simply to clone a bug that has been approved for
backport, and mark that for the backport version. Jira supports this I'm
fairly certain. This would make the original bug kept closed after
committed to trunk, and the cloned bug is used exclusive for the backport(s).
The one objection I've heard is that this could duplicate the number of bugs
that we have, but the per release statistics would not change in any way.
What do you guys think? I'm personally +1 on this idea.
-- Leif
Re: Backports
Posted by taorui <we...@126.com>.
+1 from me.
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 08:28 -0700, James Peach wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > James suggested a while ago that we change how we deal with backported bugs. I agree with him that our system of closing, reopening, reassigning etc. is not only complicated, but difficult to follow.
> >
> > His suggestion was simply to clone a bug that has been approved for backport, and mark that for the backport version. Jira supports this I'm fairly certain. This would make the original bug kept closed after committed to trunk, and the cloned bug is used exclusive for the backport(s).
> >
> > The one objection I've heard is that this could duplicate the number of bugs that we have, but the per release statistics would not change in any way.
> >
> > What do you guys think? I'm personally +1 on this idea.
>
> +1 from me ... I find it quite confusing when fixe bugs get re-opened for backports
>
> J
Re: Backports
Posted by James Peach <ja...@me.com>.
On Apr 26, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> James suggested a while ago that we change how we deal with backported bugs. I agree with him that our system of closing, reopening, reassigning etc. is not only complicated, but difficult to follow.
>
> His suggestion was simply to clone a bug that has been approved for backport, and mark that for the backport version. Jira supports this I'm fairly certain. This would make the original bug kept closed after committed to trunk, and the cloned bug is used exclusive for the backport(s).
>
> The one objection I've heard is that this could duplicate the number of bugs that we have, but the per release statistics would not change in any way.
>
> What do you guys think? I'm personally +1 on this idea.
+1 from me ... I find it quite confusing when fixe bugs get re-opened for backports
J
Re: Backports
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <le...@ogre.com>.
On 4/27/12 7:34 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> Hi all,
>>
>> James suggested a while ago that we change how we deal with
>> backported bugs.
>> I agree with him that our system of closing, reopening, reassigning
>> etc. is
>> not only complicated, but difficult to follow.
>>
>> His suggestion was simply to clone a bug that has been approved for
>> backport, and mark that for the backport version. Jira supports this
>> I'm
>> fairly certain. This would make the original bug kept closed after
>> committed to trunk, and the cloned bug is used exclusive for the
>> backport(s).
>>
>> The one objection I've heard is that this could duplicate the number
>> of bugs
>> that we have, but the per release statistics would not change in any
>> way.
>>
>> What do you guys think? I'm personally +1 on this idea.
> Which bug number goes into CHANGES then?
>
The cloned one I'd imagine. It would have all the previous history (since
it's a clone), in addition to the commit message(s) for the backport.
I can see the potential "confusion" that trunk and a stable release has
different TS-xyz numbers for the same fix. But on the other hand, it's now
also clear that it's a backport bug, potentially with merge fixes etc.
-- Leif
Re: Backports
Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.
+1
----- Original Message -----
> So everyone is on board for this? Since we've already begun the
> release
> process for 3.0.5, I think it might be best to start the new process
> with
> 3.0.6 and 3.1.5, thoughts?
>
> Brian
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:30 AM, James Peach <ja...@me.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:34 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> James suggested a while ago that we change how we deal with
> > >> backported bugs.
> > >> I agree with him that our system of closing, reopening,
> > >> reassigning
> > >> etc. is
> > >> not only complicated, but difficult to follow.
> > >>
> > >> His suggestion was simply to clone a bug that has been approved
> > >> for
> > >> backport, and mark that for the backport version. Jira supports
> > >> this
> > >> I'm
> > >> fairly certain. This would make the original bug kept closed
> > >> after
> > >> committed to trunk, and the cloned bug is used exclusive for the
> > >> backport(s).
> > >>
> > >> The one objection I've heard is that this could duplicate the
> > >> number
> > >> of bugs
> > >> that we have, but the per release statistics would not change in
> > >> any
> > >> way.
> > >>
> > >> What do you guys think? I'm personally +1 on this idea.
> > >
> > > Which bug number goes into CHANGES then?
> >
> > I suggest that CHANGES in the backport should have the bug number
> > of the
> > clone (ie. the bug that was used to do that backporting).
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> -- Leif
> > >
> > > i
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Igor Galić
> > >
> > > Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
> > > Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
> > > URL: http://brainsware.org/
> > > GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
> > >
> >
> >
>
--
Igor Galić
Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: Backports
Posted by Brian Geffon <br...@apache.org>.
So everyone is on board for this? Since we've already begun the release
process for 3.0.5, I think it might be best to start the new process with
3.0.6 and 3.1.5, thoughts?
Brian
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:30 AM, James Peach <ja...@me.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:34 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> James suggested a while ago that we change how we deal with
> >> backported bugs.
> >> I agree with him that our system of closing, reopening, reassigning
> >> etc. is
> >> not only complicated, but difficult to follow.
> >>
> >> His suggestion was simply to clone a bug that has been approved for
> >> backport, and mark that for the backport version. Jira supports this
> >> I'm
> >> fairly certain. This would make the original bug kept closed after
> >> committed to trunk, and the cloned bug is used exclusive for the
> >> backport(s).
> >>
> >> The one objection I've heard is that this could duplicate the number
> >> of bugs
> >> that we have, but the per release statistics would not change in any
> >> way.
> >>
> >> What do you guys think? I'm personally +1 on this idea.
> >
> > Which bug number goes into CHANGES then?
>
> I suggest that CHANGES in the backport should have the bug number of the
> clone (ie. the bug that was used to do that backporting).
>
> >
> >>
> >> -- Leif
> >
> > i
> >
> >
> > --
> > Igor Galić
> >
> > Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
> > Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
> > URL: http://brainsware.org/
> > GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
> >
>
>
Re: Backports
Posted by James Peach <ja...@me.com>.
On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:34 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> Hi all,
>>
>> James suggested a while ago that we change how we deal with
>> backported bugs.
>> I agree with him that our system of closing, reopening, reassigning
>> etc. is
>> not only complicated, but difficult to follow.
>>
>> His suggestion was simply to clone a bug that has been approved for
>> backport, and mark that for the backport version. Jira supports this
>> I'm
>> fairly certain. This would make the original bug kept closed after
>> committed to trunk, and the cloned bug is used exclusive for the
>> backport(s).
>>
>> The one objection I've heard is that this could duplicate the number
>> of bugs
>> that we have, but the per release statistics would not change in any
>> way.
>>
>> What do you guys think? I'm personally +1 on this idea.
>
> Which bug number goes into CHANGES then?
I suggest that CHANGES in the backport should have the bug number of the clone (ie. the bug that was used to do that backporting).
>
>>
>> -- Leif
>
> i
>
>
> --
> Igor Galić
>
> Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
> Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
> URL: http://brainsware.org/
> GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
>
Re: Backports
Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.
----- Original Message -----
> Hi all,
>
> James suggested a while ago that we change how we deal with
> backported bugs.
> I agree with him that our system of closing, reopening, reassigning
> etc. is
> not only complicated, but difficult to follow.
>
> His suggestion was simply to clone a bug that has been approved for
> backport, and mark that for the backport version. Jira supports this
> I'm
> fairly certain. This would make the original bug kept closed after
> committed to trunk, and the cloned bug is used exclusive for the
> backport(s).
>
> The one objection I've heard is that this could duplicate the number
> of bugs
> that we have, but the per release statistics would not change in any
> way.
>
> What do you guys think? I'm personally +1 on this idea.
Which bug number goes into CHANGES then?
>
> -- Leif
i
--
Igor Galić
Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE