[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Stop issue verification?
From: |
Dan Eble |
Subject: |
Re: Stop issue verification? |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:14:43 -0400 |
On Oct 25, 2020, at 15:43, Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr> wrote:
>
> I propose that we:
>
> - Remove this procedure.
>
> - Also remove the "Status" scoped label, adding non-scoped labels
> when necessary.
>
> - Status::new and Status::accepted: no longer applicable since
> there is no longer a formal bug squad.
I'm pretty sure I can support this in any case.
> - Status::fixed and Status::verified: not needed anymore if there
> is no verification (closed issues are fixed).
I guess you mean "closed issues that are not tagged as invalid are fixed."
> - Status::started: assign the issue to yourself if you are working
> on it. This appears in the UI and you also see if an issue has
> an associated merge request.
Agreed.
> - Status::invalid, Status::duplicate and Status::shelved converted
> to plain labels.
What is the value of "shelved"? We have 3 issues with that label and I don't
see what makes them special.
> - Explicitely state in [CG 9.1] that whenever applicable, bug fixes
> should contain a regression test − currently it says this needs a policy.
I would not make it a policy, but I would say that if you want your
contribution to work six months from now, you should make an effort to cover it
in regression tests.
—
Dan
- Stop issue verification?, Jean Abou Samra, 2020/10/25
- Re: Stop issue verification?,
Dan Eble <=
- Re: Stop issue verification?, Jean Abou Samra, 2020/10/26
- Re: Stop issue verification?, Dan Eble, 2020/10/26
- Re: Stop issue verification?, Jean Abou Samra, 2020/10/26
- Re: Stop issue verification?, Karlin High, 2020/10/26
- Re: Stop issue verification?, Jean Abou Samra, 2020/10/26
- Re: Stop issue verification?, Karlin High, 2020/10/26
Re: Stop issue verification?, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/10/26