Saturday 30 Jan 2016 11:45:48, Alex Brandt wrote :
> Hey Guys,
>
> I've oft wondered why we don't automatically assign bugs to the
> ebuild maintainer (if a CPV is in the subject). Would there be an
> issue with adding a bug modification hook to bugzilla or a daily
> job to re-assign bugs to e
On 02/06/2016 10:35 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> Automation can go further: if there are multiple maintainers,
> assign bug to the first one and CC others.
Which is exactly what I'm doing in my tinderbox:
# get assignee and cc, GLEP 67 simplifies it
#
m=$(equery --no-color meta -m $curr 2>
On 7 February 2016 at 04:26, William Hubbs wrote:
> One concern I see with making this part of the web ui for Bugzilla is
> that Bugzilla would have to be able to parse the metadata.xml files in
> our portage tree to find the maintainers.
You could simplify it with a cron job that parses metada
On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 09:09:13AM +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 01/30/2016 06:45 PM, Alex Brandt wrote:
> > Hey Guys,
> >
> > I've oft wondered why we don't automatically assign bugs to the
> > ebuild maintainer (if a CPV is in the subject). Would there be an
> > issue with adding a bug modi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/05/2016 03:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Kent Fredric
> wrote:
>> On 6 February 2016 at 07:19, Rich Freeman
>> wrote:
>>> 'd be all for automated bug assignment. Usually when this
>>> comes up a bunch of hero b
On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 16:10:48 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 02/05/2016 03:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > The main problem I see with auto-assignment is that some asignees end
> > up being black holes for bugs. If two active devs get their bugs
> > crossed it isn't a big deal since they'll just
On 01/30/2016 06:45 PM, Alex Brandt wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> I've oft wondered why we don't automatically assign bugs to the
> ebuild maintainer (if a CPV is in the subject). Would there be an
> issue with adding a bug modification hook to bugzilla or a daily
> job to re-assign bugs to ebuild own
On 6 February 2016 at 11:19, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> You also have to take into consideration how many of them have a valid
> package atom in the summary, and how many of those would have exactly
> one maintainer. That's a very-sub subset of the full list.
Yeah. Now that I've gotten most of
On 02/05/2016 04:34 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 6 February 2016 at 10:10, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> How about, if there's (exactly) one portage-compatible atom
>> in the summary and that package has (exactly) one maintainer, we
>> auto-assign it? Otherwise, leave it to the bug wranglers.
>
>
>
On 6 February 2016 at 10:10, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> How about, if there's (exactly) one portage-compatible atom
> in the summary and that package has (exactly) one maintainer, we
> auto-assign it? Otherwise, leave it to the bug wranglers.
One of my conceptual misgivings is in practice, there'
On 6 February 2016 at 09:47, Rich Freeman wrote:
> That was my thought around having a query for bugs filed in the last
> 24h. Basically they'd be auto-assigned, but people could choose to
> review recent bugs to see if any were mis-assigned, and no action is
> necessary if they're OK.
The idea
On 02/05/2016 03:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> The main problem I see with auto-assignment is that some asignees end
> up being black holes for bugs. If two active devs get their bugs
> crossed it isn't a big deal since they'll just reassign them to each
> other. If an active dev gets their bug as
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 6 February 2016 at 07:19, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> 'd be all for automated bug assignment. Usually when this comes up a
>> bunch of hero bug wranglers step up and say it isn't needed, because
>> we have hero bug wranglers. As long as people
On 6 February 2016 at 07:19, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 'd be all for automated bug assignment. Usually when this comes up a
> bunch of hero bug wranglers step up and say it isn't needed, because
> we have hero bug wranglers. As long as people keep stepping up to do
> that I'm not going to tell them
On 6 February 2016 at 06:41, Alec Warner wrote:
> ; but 5% of the time is wrong.
Just here, in the "5% are wrong" case, instead of the problem being
resolved by bug wranglers, ... the problem has to be resolved by
whoever got assigned.
And they might not even be around in the next 2-3 weeks.
Wh
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> I find that often in schemes like this people get caught up designing the
> optimal / perfect solution (which is often tricky) as opposed to using a
> nice solution that works 95% of the time; but 5% of the time is wrong.
>
++
I'd be all fo
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Alex Brandt wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> I've oft wondered why we don't automatically assign bugs to the
> ebuild maintainer (if a CPV is in the subject). Would there be an
> issue with adding a bug modification hook to bugzilla or a daily
> job to re-assign bugs to eb
On 31 January 2016 at 06:45, Alex Brandt wrote:
> Would there be an
> issue with adding a bug modification hook to bugzilla or a daily
> job to re-assign bugs to ebuild owners (if a CPV is in the
> subject)?
I would argue the reason this probably isn't already in place might be
related to how us
Hey Guys,
I've oft wondered why we don't automatically assign bugs to the
ebuild maintainer (if a CPV is in the subject). Would there be an
issue with adding a bug modification hook to bugzilla or a daily
job to re-assign bugs to ebuild owners (if a CPV is in the
subject)?
Just curious not t
19 matches
Mail list logo
