Isn't svn set up to auto-parse and post to the bug so you can just say "fixes bug 44444" and it parses it out? I mean, i added that to gcc like 15 years ago, i'm surprised we don't do this :) Nobody should have to add this info manually unless someone forgot to put it in a commit message. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> On 06/12/2018 07:51 AM, via llvm-dev wrote: > > TL;DR: It's okay to close a bug, if you can justify it properly. > > > > Recently there has been a spate of bug-closing with what I would call > > inadequate documentation. Comments such as "Obsolete?" or "I assume > > it's fixed" could be applied to nearly every open bug we have. While > > this does reduce the open bug count--something I have been watching > > with morbid fascination for years--I do fear that the reduction is > > potentially artificial, and incorrectly puts the onus on the original > > bug author to reopen the case. > > > > I suggest that closing a bug can be done IF AND ONLY IF you also state > > one of the following: > > - that revision NNNNNN actually fixed the bug > > There is a field in bugzilla called "Fixed By Commits" that I added > specifically for this information. > > -Tom > > > - that the bug cannot be reproduced with revision NNNNNN > > - that the circumstances for the bug don't apply anymore; e.g., > > "This is about the makefiles and we don't use makefiles anymore." > > - sound reasons for not fixing something (WONTFIX) > > - some specific and plausible reason to think that a given bug is > > otherwise inapplicable or obsolete > > > > In particular, "Obsolete?" and "I assume it's fixed" are NOT enough > > justification to close a bug. > > > > If people are okay with this, I'd expect adding a new section to the > > Developer Policy is probably the right place to put it. > > > > Comments/brickbats welcome... > > --paulr > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LLVM Developers mailing list > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180612/16a5102b/attachment-0001.html>
Nah, don't think we've ever had that in LLVM - certainly would be nice to have :) On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:48 PM Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Isn't svn set up to auto-parse and post to the bug so you can just say > "fixes bug 44444" and it parses it out? > > I mean, i added that to gcc like 15 years ago, i'm surprised we don't do > this :) > > Nobody should have to add this info manually unless someone forgot to put > it in a commit message. > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 06/12/2018 07:51 AM, via llvm-dev wrote: >> > TL;DR: It's okay to close a bug, if you can justify it properly. >> > >> > Recently there has been a spate of bug-closing with what I would call >> > inadequate documentation. Comments such as "Obsolete?" or "I assume >> > it's fixed" could be applied to nearly every open bug we have. While >> > this does reduce the open bug count--something I have been watching >> > with morbid fascination for years--I do fear that the reduction is >> > potentially artificial, and incorrectly puts the onus on the original >> > bug author to reopen the case. >> > >> > I suggest that closing a bug can be done IF AND ONLY IF you also state >> > one of the following: >> > - that revision NNNNNN actually fixed the bug >> >> There is a field in bugzilla called "Fixed By Commits" that I added >> specifically for this information. >> >> -Tom >> >> > - that the bug cannot be reproduced with revision NNNNNN >> > - that the circumstances for the bug don't apply anymore; e.g., >> > "This is about the makefiles and we don't use makefiles anymore." >> > - sound reasons for not fixing something (WONTFIX) >> > - some specific and plausible reason to think that a given bug is >> > otherwise inapplicable or obsolete >> > >> > In particular, "Obsolete?" and "I assume it's fixed" are NOT enough >> > justification to close a bug. >> > >> > If people are okay with this, I'd expect adding a new section to the >> > Developer Policy is probably the right place to put it. >> > >> > Comments/brickbats welcome... >> > --paulr >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > LLVM Developers mailing list >> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180612/0bd2fcb0/attachment.html>
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewvc/gcc/hooks/ is how it was done. This used the incoming email handling for bugzilla i set up. These days, you could just use bugzilla's rest API IE a simple variant of https://github.com/mozilla/github-bugzilla-pr-linker/blob/master/app/app.py should work as a commit hook. That thing is written as a service, you just need the find/add parts of the rest api, rip them out, and use it as a post-commit hook. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:49 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:> Nah, don't think we've ever had that in LLVM - certainly would be nice to > have :) > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:48 PM Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Isn't svn set up to auto-parse and post to the bug so you can just say >> "fixes bug 44444" and it parses it out? >> >> I mean, i added that to gcc like 15 years ago, i'm surprised we don't do >> this :) >> >> Nobody should have to add this info manually unless someone forgot to put >> it in a commit message. >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> On 06/12/2018 07:51 AM, via llvm-dev wrote: >>> > TL;DR: It's okay to close a bug, if you can justify it properly. >>> > >>> > Recently there has been a spate of bug-closing with what I would call >>> > inadequate documentation. Comments such as "Obsolete?" or "I assume >>> > it's fixed" could be applied to nearly every open bug we have. While >>> > this does reduce the open bug count--something I have been watching >>> > with morbid fascination for years--I do fear that the reduction is >>> > potentially artificial, and incorrectly puts the onus on the original >>> > bug author to reopen the case. >>> > >>> > I suggest that closing a bug can be done IF AND ONLY IF you also state >>> > one of the following: >>> > - that revision NNNNNN actually fixed the bug >>> >>> There is a field in bugzilla called "Fixed By Commits" that I added >>> specifically for this information. >>> >>> -Tom >>> >>> > - that the bug cannot be reproduced with revision NNNNNN >>> > - that the circumstances for the bug don't apply anymore; e.g., >>> > "This is about the makefiles and we don't use makefiles anymore." >>> > - sound reasons for not fixing something (WONTFIX) >>> > - some specific and plausible reason to think that a given bug is >>> > otherwise inapplicable or obsolete >>> > >>> > In particular, "Obsolete?" and "I assume it's fixed" are NOT enough >>> > justification to close a bug. >>> > >>> > If people are okay with this, I'd expect adding a new section to the >>> > Developer Policy is probably the right place to put it. >>> > >>> > Comments/brickbats welcome... >>> > --paulr >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list >>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180612/8ac3c756/attachment.html>