Re: [workflow] Automatically close bug report when a patch is committed

[Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2193 bytes --]

On 2023-09-15, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, dem 14.09.2023 um 15:51 -0700 schrieb Vagrant Cascadian:
>> On 2023-09-10, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
>> > Am Donnerstag, dem 07.09.2023 um 09:12 -0700 schrieb Vagrant
>> > Cascadian:
>> > > I am much more comfortable with the "Fixes" convention of:
>> > > 
>> > >   Fixes: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/NNN
>> > I like the idea, but we should also consider the bugs.gnu.org
>> > address
>> > here as well as the convention of putting it into angular
>> > brackets.  In
>> > fact, I might even prefer it if the convention was
>> >   Fixes: Bug description <link>
>> > where bug description is a (possibly empty) name for the bug such
>> > as "Emacs hangs when I press a key" or something.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > As for when to send it, remember that we already send a bunch of
>> > mails to guix-commits@gnu.org as our commit hook?  I think it
>> > shouldn't be too hard to search for the fixes line and send it to
>> > debbugs control.
>> 
>> Well, the complication gets to be ... which branch did it land in? in
>> master, it's fairly obvious... you can just mark it as
>> done/closed/etc. I guess with other branches it makes sense to mark
>> it with the "pending" or maybe some more specific usertag
>> "pending-in-BRANCH"?
> I don't think such a distinction is needed in most cases.  In fact, if
> it's about regular bugs, then a graft should likely hit master in case
> that an actual update is needed on another branch.  Other than that,
> it'd be silly to mark bugs specifically for e.g. "emacs-team" as still
> pending on the account of them not having hit master yet.

I guess I do not consider anything done until it lands in the master
branch, but obviously if it is committed in some branch, it is nice to
flag that somehow. "pending" seems appropriate up until it lands in
master.

Maybe marking by team or branch or whatnot is overkill, sure. Though it
would allow you could see at a glance which branch to look in without
diving into the whole history of the issue...

Of course, I will not make terrible loud noises if folks decide
otherwise. :)

live well,
  vagrant

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]