Archives
Archives
| From: | Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree) | ||
| Date: | Mon, 15 Aug 2016 04:38:22 | ||
| Message-Id: | 20160815163724.1b0aeebd@katipo2.lan | ||
| In Reply to: | #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree) by Kent Fredric |
||
| 1 | On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:29:43 +1200 |
| 2 | Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 | |
| 4 | > > * The b.g.o workflow, bugs should not be considered fixed until the |
| 5 | > > fix has reached the stable tree. Today the InVCS keyword exists for |
| 6 | > > this purpose, but it is used to varying degree amongst developers. |
| 7 | > > Will a workflow change to introduce a new status, e.g RESOLVED |
| 8 | > > NeedsStable (name for illustration purpose only) incentivize |
| 9 | > > developers to not close bugs before it is fixed? |
| 10 | |
| 11 | Also, if its already stable, the fix may go directly into stable. |
| 12 | |
| 13 | Does this need to also spend time in "NeedsStable" state? |
| 14 | |
| 15 | I'd assume not. But this is going to need clear definitions and lots of usecase |
| 16 | writeups. |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree) | james <garftd@×××××××.net> |