From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [143.182.124.37]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D68AE0070B for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from azsmga002.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.35]) by azsmga102.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2012 12:25:44 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208,217";a="113897333" Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.157]) by AZSMGA002.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2012 12:25:44 -0700 Received: from irsmsx152.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.66) by IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:25:30 +0100 Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.176]) by IRSMSX152.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.185]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:25:30 +0100 From: "Serban, Laurentiu" To: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" Thread-Topic: VERIFIED vs CLOSED in yocto bugzilla Thread-Index: Ac1OUUe01eHZ2xUEQ264PiIbIWnZ7w== Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:25:29 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: VERIFIED vs CLOSED in yocto bugzilla X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:25:45 -0000 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E16513A01CAAFF40B65178C63CE45EEC1914D426IRSMSX102gercor_" --_000_E16513A01CAAFF40B65178C63CE45EEC1914D426IRSMSX102gercor_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I submit to your attention the following issue related to Yocto project's b= ugzilla: Which is the most appropriate end for a the lifecycle of a bugzilla issue: = VERIFIED or CLOSED? Currently the bug lifecycle final point is VERIFIED and the status CLOSED i= s not used. Setting a bug to CLOSED after it was VERIFIED has no impact on = the lifecycle itself as the bug can be reopened anyway. My proposal is the following: keep VERIFIED as the final point of the bug l= ifecycle and use the status CLOSED for the bug only after the 1.3 release, = if the regression testing for the bug is ran and passed. So after the 1.3 release the ideal situation is that all the bugs related t= o it with previous status VERIFIED are CLOSED. Waiting for your opinion on this, Thank you, Laurentiu Serban QA Engineer Open Source Technology Center System Software Division Romania Desk: +40 31 8604742 iNET: 88451042 --_000_E16513A01CAAFF40B65178C63CE45EEC1914D426IRSMSX102gercor_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

I submit to your attention the following issue relat= ed to Yocto project’s bugzilla:

Which is the most appropriate end for a the lifecycl= e of a bugzilla issue: VERIFIED or CLOSED?

Currently the bug lifecycle final point is VERIFIED = and the status CLOSED is not used. Setting a bug to CLOSED after it was VER= IFIED has no impact on the lifecycle itself as the bug can be reopened anyw= ay.

My proposal is the following: keep VERIFIED as the f= inal point of the bug lifecycle and use the status CLOSED for the bug only = after the 1.3 release, if the regression testing for the bug is ran and passed.<= /p>

So after the 1.3 release the ideal situation is that= all the bugs related to it with previous status VERIFIED are CLOSED.<= /o:p>

Waiting for your opinion on this,

Thank you,

Laurentiu Serban

QA Engineer

Open Source Technology Cen= ter

System Software Division R= omania

Desk: +40 31 8604742

iNET: 88451042<= /span>

--_000_E16513A01CAAFF40B65178C63CE45EEC1914D426IRSMSX102gercor_-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ey0-f176.google.com (mail-ey0-f176.google.com [209.85.215.176]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08338E00723 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:19:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eaab16 with SMTP id b16so2710833eaa.35 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:19:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=pp9PI5Vtrm3p1uB3kFC0aBLJTyG4PPOhRQTBCrc6dLY=; b=z5TxbgJu/aCQveNX3hUHDDlK1UcNK92KufHG7aDKefPszfHjkaQaD6WPABjoh7A2U2 DEw1Q4YUSaMVUZKwZ2OAku+LGcuIAZ5QTjd7GqfTMQ3JQMxWz5kXBIZ3sHli3MkjHTLl cMyh6RE2g1LkB8mdiQYEMSmjQ8bX5BCK5z4eggrd3n8irn27PLT59fygdWBXw84PJki8 6d0Ymvieoy9xEAvhWIlvUZy69Trn6ub2BcOQ0AoF/pgIxWtxEM5Q15eBwX8kbgwxUqXa /fG0nPScXYb250DXxeU+E/ESGn3sAW5NL0MLLRd7MAEyDNSItLmIAyVzfBpKa2UvVS3E qS8g== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.185.137 with SMTP id u9mr4891977eem.220.1340137169365; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.219.71 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:19:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:19:29 -0700 Message-ID: From: Khem Raj To: "Serban, Laurentiu" Cc: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: VERIFIED vs CLOSED in yocto bugzilla X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:31 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec517a742ee2b1c04c2d8ff0d --bcaec517a742ee2b1c04c2d8ff0d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tuesday, June 19, 2012, Serban, Laurentiu wrote: > Hello, > > > > I submit to your attention the following issue related to Yocto project= =E2=80=99s bugzilla: > > > > Which is the most appropriate end for a the lifecycle of a bugzilla issue: VERIFIED or CLOSED? > > Currently the bug lifecycle final point is VERIFIED and the status CLOSED is not used. Setting a bug to CLOSED after it was VERIFIED has no impact on the lifecycle itself as the bug can be reopened anyway. > > > > My proposal is the following: keep VERIFIED as the final point of the bug lifecycle and use the status CLOSED for the bug only after the 1.3 release, if the regression testing for the bug is ran and passed. > > So after the 1.3 release the ideal situation is that all the bugs related to it with previous status VERIFIED are CLOSED. > > > > Waiting for your opinion on this, > Closed is something for the original submitter IMO He should be the one to mark the bug closed > Thank you, > > > > Laurentiu Serban > > QA Engineer > > Open Source Technology Center > > System Software Division Romania > > Desk: +40 31 8604742 > > iNET: 88451042 > > --bcaec517a742ee2b1c04c2d8ff0d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tuesday, June 19, 2012, Serban, Laurentiu <laurentiu.serban@intel.com> wrote:
&g= t; Hello,
>
> =C2=A0
>
> I submit to your attention= the following issue related to Yocto project=E2=80=99s bugzilla:
>
> =C2=A0
>
> Which is the most appropriate end for a= the lifecycle of a bugzilla issue: VERIFIED or CLOSED?
>
> Cur= rently the bug lifecycle final point is VERIFIED and the status CLOSED is n= ot used. Setting a bug to CLOSED after it was VERIFIED has no impact on the= lifecycle itself as the bug can be reopened anyway.
>
> =C2=A0
>
> My proposal is the following: keep VERI= FIED as the final point of the bug lifecycle and use the status CLOSED for = the bug only after the 1.3 release, if the regression testing for the bug i= s ran and passed.
>
> So after the 1.3 release the ideal situation is that all the b= ugs related to it with previous status VERIFIED are CLOSED.
>
>= =C2=A0
>
> Waiting for your opinion on this,
>

Cl= osed is something for the original submitter IMO
He should be the one to mark the bug closed
> Thank you,
>
= > =C2=A0
>
> Laurentiu Serban
>
> QA Engineer>
> Open Source Technology Center
>
> System Software= Division Romania
>
> Desk: +40 31 8604742
>
> iNET: 88451042
>> =C2=A0 --bcaec517a742ee2b1c04c2d8ff0d-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CD7E01443 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2012 16:24:06 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="167755081" Received: from unknown (HELO envy.home) ([10.255.12.67]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2012 16:24:05 -0700 Message-ID: <4FE109C4.1010906@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:22:44 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Serban, Laurentiu" References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 Cc: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: VERIFIED vs CLOSED in yocto bugzilla X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:24:06 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 06/19/2012 12:25 PM, Serban, Laurentiu wrote: > Hello, > > > > I submit to your attention the following issue related to Yocto > project’s bugzilla: > > > > Which is the most appropriate end for a the lifecycle of a bugzilla > issue: VERIFIED or CLOSED? > > Currently the bug lifecycle final point is VERIFIED and the status > CLOSED is not used. Setting a bug to CLOSED after it was VERIFIED has no > impact on the lifecycle itself as the bug can be reopened anyway. > > > > My proposal is the following: keep VERIFIED as the final point of the > bug lifecycle and use the status CLOSED for the bug only after the 1.3 > release, *if* the regression testing for the bug is ran and passed. > > So after the 1.3 release the ideal situation is that all the bugs > related to it with previous status VERIFIED are CLOSED. What is the reasoning driving this change? What does CLOSED indicate that VERIFIED does not already convey? Thanks, Darren > > > > Waiting for your opinion on this, > > Thank you, > > > > *Laurentiu Serban* > > QA Engineer > > Open Source Technology Center > > System Software Division Romania > > Desk: +40 31 8604742** > > iNET: 88451042 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto > -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFB78E0070C for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2012 00:12:28 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="182560380" Received: from irsmsx101.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.153]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2012 00:12:27 -0700 Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.159) by IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:12:26 +0100 Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.176]) by IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.70]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:12:26 +0100 From: "Serban, Laurentiu" To: Darren Hart Thread-Topic: [yocto] VERIFIED vs CLOSED in yocto bugzilla Thread-Index: Ac1OUUe01eHZ2xUEQ264PiIbIWnZ7wAGMRgAABJz83A= Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:12:25 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4FE109C4.1010906@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4FE109C4.1010906@linux.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: VERIFIED vs CLOSED in yocto bugzilla X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:12:28 -0000 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The discussion was triggered in the Yocto Project Technical Team Meeting fr= om June 19th. -----Original Message----- From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvhart@linux.intel.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:23 AM To: Serban, Laurentiu Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [yocto] VERIFIED vs CLOSED in yocto bugzilla On 06/19/2012 12:25 PM, Serban, Laurentiu wrote: > Hello, >=20 > =20 >=20 > I submit to your attention the following issue related to Yocto=20 > project's bugzilla: >=20 > =20 >=20 > Which is the most appropriate end for a the lifecycle of a bugzilla > issue: VERIFIED or CLOSED? >=20 > Currently the bug lifecycle final point is VERIFIED and the status=20 > CLOSED is not used. Setting a bug to CLOSED after it was VERIFIED has=20 > no impact on the lifecycle itself as the bug can be reopened anyway. >=20 > =20 >=20 > My proposal is the following: keep VERIFIED as the final point of the=20 > bug lifecycle and use the status CLOSED for the bug only after the 1.3=20 > release, *if* the regression testing for the bug is ran and passed. >=20 > So after the 1.3 release the ideal situation is that all the bugs=20 > related to it with previous status VERIFIED are CLOSED. What is the reasoning driving this change? What does CLOSED indicate that V= ERIFIED does not already convey? Thanks, Darren >=20 > =20 >=20 > Waiting for your opinion on this, >=20 > Thank you, >=20 > =20 >=20 > *Laurentiu Serban* >=20 > QA Engineer >=20 > Open Source Technology Center >=20 > System Software Division Romania >=20 > Desk: +40 31 8604742** >=20 > iNET: 88451042 >=20 > =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto >=20 -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from azsmga102.ch.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [143.182.124.36]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89F8E0070C for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.216.50]) by mga14.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 20 Jun 2012 02:19:04 -0700 Received: by qafl39 with SMTP id l39so186415qaf.2 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:19:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=HQTYM/9s36iRi+fKESZr6IQp0gGfDYsEQppcCwmgdQ0=; b=QTm83P1MQfxUzfvap6FEe6Ybc6BCaV6TfGN+k8gHWQAZkvZUfR9uRpLuGw4r9U6Qeg MR/YqZ7DnwTpStnQDgkuNazmAS+YKgC2khXoaNTd1z8kuAfVQcUG5IulG5vxuvcIUf0N q5ZIvoEPkpGM2PFdj6KgcYepJtd7EDwpkJPOK9kRxkV3D84cZMn2aJbQSc0BjW9HiH8E cFJImPg54RfpExAxlTLaaCEbC9yNfLxJXB71X0VkUz7GBsHBGSjX9dc4NQJ567NVMoS6 A1rHV6LqGQ0WRHqf+kPz46z0MgGLkw/k8b+ln+0uNFzCqpU1BbO4Kv48s/ge9QFmz+Ow jcHA== Received: by 10.224.201.136 with SMTP id fa8mr39329735qab.20.1340183942916; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:19:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.251.142 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:18:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FE109C4.1010906@linux.intel.com> References: <4FE109C4.1010906@linux.intel.com> From: "Burton, Ross" Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:18:42 +0100 Message-ID: To: Darren Hart X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmvJWEOlsCGAqR8CBWqXJ0pMlDrh56yMVBrA5vCzVry5OF1hmQ7yMqcbGWacssYlLCErlY+ Cc: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: VERIFIED vs CLOSED in yocto bugzilla X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:19:04 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 20 June 2012 00:22, Darren Hart wrote: > What is the reasoning driving this change? What does CLOSED indicate > that VERIFIED does not already convey? Agreed -- hiding CLOSED would be my proposal as it doesn't add any meaning, just complicates the lifecycle. Ross From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ee0-f48.google.com (mail-ee0-f48.google.com [74.125.83.48]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25217E0070B for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:28:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so3152229eek.35 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:28:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=YserVXKS7/mzZ5bpT2evT9GcvXON2fR7vWatQQi9w+s=; b=PVDILiGeXs6JO+uQsKJ0L4pnPyhL11yNp3IDLeEzWddfodAzNpzFBNFop+5bnTruJ7 qKITcMhq3n0ZTf5uK1OzevOj6Izp7ug2REaJ66UUpBImaJGi0Dv05flCbLX1KLNhyL1b szxahffIVpY8KhrWykVs58JQdibjuye06nNcCYsxFyGxpDz6ERMWF73aHYpAFNL+dqJD 7xTbFabKFb1VFAwLccS/Nv1SIYuACeO/LtDM3nBN2uWFew/aKKKZVmhDjJIbJJOPAeJ1 jvWZI3ZPQsGrakE18JMbmSjFV6qwWfPBXKQvFQ/uTD3UfvGzOI8XMXv/1lCERHL/O8jX PnBg== Received: by 10.14.37.76 with SMTP id x52mr5405845eea.102.1340206085822; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:28:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.219.71 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:27:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4FE109C4.1010906@linux.intel.com> From: Khem Raj Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:27:35 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Burton, Ross" Cc: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" , Darren Hart Subject: Re: VERIFIED vs CLOSED in yocto bugzilla X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:28:07 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:18 AM, Burton, Ross wrote: > > Agreed -- hiding CLOSED would be my proposal as it doesn't add any > meaning, just complicates the lifecycle. I think yes hiding closed it ok since it does not change much in fix. I wouldnt say it complicates but it completes the life cycle since the owner for closing action is submitter. it closes the life cycle nicely. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1ACE0070B for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:49:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2012 08:49:00 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,351,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="160093706" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.12.124]) ([10.255.12.124]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2012 08:48:59 -0700 Message-ID: <4FE1F0EB.9060806@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:48:59 -0700 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Khem Raj References: <4FE109C4.1010906@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Cc: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" , Darren Hart Subject: Re: VERIFIED vs CLOSED in yocto bugzilla X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:49:00 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 06/20/2012 08:27 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:18 AM, Burton, Ross wrote: >> >> Agreed -- hiding CLOSED would be my proposal as it doesn't add any >> meaning, just complicates the lifecycle. > > I think yes hiding closed it ok since it does not change much in fix. > I wouldnt say it complicates but it completes the life cycle > since the owner for closing action is submitter. it closes the life > cycle nicely. The bug verification is the responsibility of the submitter, not the assignee/owner. So there could be 2 actions here, one is the submitter has verified this (added any test cases to testoipa for future regression testing. The second is, as Laurentiu suggests, marking closed by the QA team when releases does it's final regression testing. So yes, I could see hiding CLOSED and leaving the final state as VERIFIED, but I can see further value of using the CLOSED state to indicate that it passed regression at the end of the release cycle. So this should also act as a reminder to submitters to "verify" there bugs! Sau! > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto > > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ey0-f176.google.com (mail-ey0-f176.google.com [209.85.215.176]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB5EE00723 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:56:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eaab16 with SMTP id b16so3162816eaa.35 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:56:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Pedw2FZJke3rnkD+WURajv3k4qILlm81DFJyObSTGKs=; b=sD0D2C399LTBZmuRZkXV6SK9nCOU4LiSA9URH1F/RiWFr3+mQeyL+jhDQPhECnOqj1 fhkjwcqZAs3erRW50Kf1ybh7ZQEjsADrpHKF0E5QOd56mG2MM3/0AcPnGtoO/TD9r7ch 7z8WIIGudhoq5avBVc+6p4230M+/zleHtXXnsc02w/S2rc5xMyi1uBoCQFvsFmfyIJ7v lvLJMZoQMpNVygUOmv6xuUwuKlkKFRfsJ2V87csUwPOPItKMvJCwtf4BaNn3OAHkPd4N U5ly/If0zC2asfO4U+6xZwhi3L1i1m3BpM3O46NUzlVPJOeV54rvXhWC6iw4whQTi3hI Jaqg== Received: by 10.14.95.138 with SMTP id p10mr5389861eef.110.1340207781434; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:56:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.219.71 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:55:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FE1F0EB.9060806@linux.intel.com> References: <4FE109C4.1010906@linux.intel.com> <4FE1F0EB.9060806@linux.intel.com> From: Khem Raj Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:55:51 -0700 Message-ID: To: Saul Wold Cc: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" , Darren Hart Subject: Re: VERIFIED vs CLOSED in yocto bugzilla X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:56:22 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Saul Wold wrote: > The bug verification is the responsibility of the submitter, not the > assignee/owner. ok, in some workflows verified is owned by testting/qa person, I was assuming that when testing validates the bug fix it sets the state to verified and owner back to original submitter. what you describe then verified and closed are almost same in yocto's bug flow so one can be traded for other or different meaning assigned to say closed.