On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote:> On 07/26/2017 12:52 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote: >> I'm a little vary of adding more fields, because I think we already >> have lots of fields that are never used. >> > > I'm up for removing unused fields too. Which ones did you have in mind?I think URL, Keywords, Alias, and Personal Tags are used extremely rarely. And the whole time estimate box I think is never used.> > -Tom > >> Having said that, your suggestions seem reasonable, and it would be >> cool if we could create tools to automate the release process a bit >> more based on this. >> >> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> Ping. >>> >>> On 07/04/2017 06:53 AM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I would like to propose adding the following new fields/flags to bugzilla. >>>> My goal is to make it easier to manage bug fixes and merges using automated >>>> scripts. >>>> >>>> - "Trunk Revision(s)" field >>>> This would give users a place to enter which revision(s) in trunk fixed a >>>> particular bug. This would make it easy to generate a list of bugs fixed >>>> by each release which could be included in the release notes. >>>> >>>> - "Stable Revision(s)" field >>>> This would give users a place to enter which revision(s) in the stable branch(es) >>>> fixed a particular bug. >>>> >>>> - "X.Y.Z Merge Request flags" >>>> This is a flag you could set to request that the commits in the "Trunk Revision(s)" >>>> field be merged into one of the stable branches. This along with the >>>> "Trunk Revision" field would make it possible to nominate a bugfix for >>>> a stable branch without having to create a new bug. >>>> >>>> - "Code Owner Approval flag" >>>> This flag you can set to show that code owner has approved merging the >>>> "Trunk Revision(s)" commits to the requested branch. >>>> >>>> - "Release Manager Approval flag" >>>> This flag you can set to show that the release manager has approved merging the >>>> "Trunk Revision(s)" commits to the requested branch >>>> >>>> What do people think? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Tom >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >
On 07/26/2017 11:24 AM, Hans Wennborg wrote:> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote: >> On 07/26/2017 12:52 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote: >>> I'm a little vary of adding more fields, because I think we already >>> have lots of fields that are never used. >>> >> >> I'm up for removing unused fields too. Which ones did you have in mind? > > I think URL, Keywords, Alias, and Personal Tags are used extremely > rarely. And the whole time estimate box I think is never used. >Ok, I can try to do some queries to see how often these are used. I also think I can merge the proposed Trunk Revision(s) and Stable Revision(s) fields into a single field "Fixed-by Revision(s)" since we should be able to deduce the branch from the revision number. If there are no objections, I will try to work on these additions next week. -Tom>> >> -Tom >> >>> Having said that, your suggestions seem reasonable, and it would be >>> cool if we could create tools to automate the release process a bit >>> more based on this. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev >>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> Ping. >>>> >>>> On 07/04/2017 06:53 AM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to propose adding the following new fields/flags to bugzilla. >>>>> My goal is to make it easier to manage bug fixes and merges using automated >>>>> scripts. >>>>> >>>>> - "Trunk Revision(s)" field >>>>> This would give users a place to enter which revision(s) in trunk fixed a >>>>> particular bug. This would make it easy to generate a list of bugs fixed >>>>> by each release which could be included in the release notes. >>>>> >>>>> - "Stable Revision(s)" field >>>>> This would give users a place to enter which revision(s) in the stable branch(es) >>>>> fixed a particular bug. >>>>> >>>>> - "X.Y.Z Merge Request flags" >>>>> This is a flag you could set to request that the commits in the "Trunk Revision(s)" >>>>> field be merged into one of the stable branches. This along with the >>>>> "Trunk Revision" field would make it possible to nominate a bugfix for >>>>> a stable branch without having to create a new bug. >>>>> >>>>> - "Code Owner Approval flag" >>>>> This flag you can set to show that code owner has approved merging the >>>>> "Trunk Revision(s)" commits to the requested branch. >>>>> >>>>> - "Release Manager Approval flag" >>>>> This flag you can set to show that the release manager has approved merging the >>>>> "Trunk Revision(s)" commits to the requested branch >>>>> >>>>> What do people think? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Tom >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>
Matthias Braun via llvm-dev
2017-Aug-04 18:23 UTC
[llvm-dev] Adding new fields to bugzilla
> On Jul 26, 2017, at 11:24 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote: >> On 07/26/2017 12:52 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote: >>> I'm a little vary of adding more fields, because I think we already >>> have lots of fields that are never used. >>> >> >> I'm up for removing unused fields too. Which ones did you have in mind? > > I think URL, Keywords, Alias, and Personal Tags are used extremely > rarely. And the whole time estimate box I think is never used.The possible choices for the "Hardware" field are also odd/outdated and I'd argue we can just drop that field.