26 Nov
2019
26 Nov
'19
2:29 p.m.
Currently we have these open statuses:
New
Triaged
Verified
Need More Info
In Progress
Feedback
Need Review
Need Test
Testing
Pending Backport
Pending Upstream
It seems to me many of these are mostly unused making their presence
confusing to newcomers. I propose we prune these down to:
New: default for new trackers; ideally this list should be short and
regularly looked at.
Triaged: it's been looked at by PTL/team member and could be assigned out.
Need More Info: can't be worked on without more information
In Progress: assignee is working on the ticket.
Need Review: upstream PR ready for review
Pending Backport: upstream PR merged; backports are pending.
--
Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D.
He / Him / His
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Sunnyvale, CA
GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D
26 Nov
26 Nov
4:50 p.m.
We regularly in RGW do use:
Testing -- PR is approved but waiting for or waiting on test runs
Need Test -- PR submitted but needs unit tests
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 1:30 PM Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Currently we have these open statuses:
New
Triaged
Verified
Need More Info
In Progress
Feedback
Need Review
Need Test
Testing
Pending Backport
Pending Upstream
It seems to me many of these are mostly unused making their presence
confusing to newcomers. I propose we prune these down to:
New: default for new trackers; ideally this list should be short and
regularly looked at.
Triaged: it's been looked at by PTL/team member and could be assigned out.
Need More Info: can't be worked on without more information
In Progress: assignee is working on the ticket.
Need Review: upstream PR ready for review
Pending Backport: upstream PR merged; backports are pending.
--
Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D.
He / Him / His
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Sunnyvale, CA
GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list -- dev(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave(a)ceph.io
--
Matt Benjamin
Red Hat, Inc.
315 West Huron Street, Suite 140A
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103
http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/storage
tel. 734-821-5101
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309
6:14 p.m.
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Matt Benjamin wrote:
We regularly in RGW do use:
Testing -- PR is approved but waiting for or waiting on test runs
Need Test -- PR submitted but needs unit tests
IMO the needs-* flags make a lot of sense to me for PRs; I'm not sure
they're as helpful in the tracker since it is a lot of work to keep the PR
state and the tracker state in sync...
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 1:30 PM Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Currently we have these open statuses:
>
> New
> Triaged
> Verified
> Need More Info
> In Progress
> Feedback
> Need Review
> Need Test
> Testing
> Pending Backport
> Pending Upstream
>
> It seems to me many of these are mostly unused making their presence
> confusing to newcomers. I propose we prune these down to:
>
> New: default for new trackers; ideally this list should be short and
> regularly looked at.
> Triaged: it's been looked at by PTL/team member and could be assigned out.
+1 on dropping/combining Verfied with Triaged. Also +1 on dropping
Feedback.
> Need More Info: can't be worked on without
more information
> In Progress: assignee is working on the ticket.
> Need Review: upstream PR ready for review
In practice I find the Need Review/Need Test/Testing to be ambiguous.. the
tracker state rarely reflects the actual state of the bug/PR becuase
sometimes the developer is doing the testing and sometimes someone else
is. I'd be happy with something the captures all three (Review/Test)?
> Pending Backport: upstream PR merged; backports
are pending.
Historically Pending Upstream has meant that hte bug is related to an
external project and we're just waiting on distro/kernel/whatever to
get the fix. This generally means it's not actually a ceph bug; having
it in the state just makes it easier to find the bug when trying to
understand why you're (still) seeing some failure. Okay to drop it, or
maybe we can rename it to something that more clearly indicates that we're
waiting on some external project to apply a fix.
sage
--
Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D.
He / Him / His
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Sunnyvale, CA
GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list -- dev(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave(a)ceph.io
--
Matt Benjamin
Red Hat, Inc.
315 West Huron Street, Suite 140A
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103
http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/storage
tel. 734-821-5101
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list -- dev(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave(a)ceph.io
6:33 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM Sage Weil <sweil(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Matt Benjamin wrote:
We are using Pending Upstream in the kernel client for patches that
are pending merge to Linus' tree, so in some sense it is used for ceph
bugs. I'm fine with dropping it since it would be covered by the
Review/Test state (generally patches are sitting in our testing branch
until they are picked up), but FWIW I don't find its name confusing.
Thanks,
Ilya
We regularly in RGW do use:
Testing -- PR is approved but waiting for or waiting on test runs
Need Test -- PR submitted but needs unit tests
IMO the needs-* flags make a lot of sense to me for PRs; I'm not sure
they're as helpful in the tracker since it is a lot of work to keep the PR
state and the tracker state in sync...
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 1:30 PM Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Currently we have these open statuses:
>
> New
> Triaged
> Verified
> Need More Info
> In Progress
> Feedback
> Need Review
> Need Test
> Testing
> Pending Backport
> Pending Upstream
>
> It seems to me many of these are mostly unused making their presence
> confusing to newcomers. I propose we prune these down to:
>
> New: default for new trackers; ideally this list should be short and
> regularly looked at.
> Triaged: it's been looked at by PTL/team member and could be assigned out.
+1 on dropping/combining Verfied with Triaged. Also +1 on dropping
Feedback.
> Need More Info: can't be worked on
without more information
> In Progress: assignee is working on the ticket.
> Need Review: upstream PR ready for review
In practice I find the Need Review/Need Test/Testing to be ambiguous.. the
tracker state rarely reflects the actual state of the bug/PR becuase
sometimes the developer is doing the testing and sometimes someone else
is. I'd be happy with something the captures all three (Review/Test)?
> Pending Backport: upstream PR merged;
backports are pending.
Historically Pending Upstream has meant that hte bug is related to an
external project and we're just waiting on distro/kernel/whatever to
get the fix. This generally means it's not actually a ceph bug; having
it in the state just makes it easier to find the bug when trying to
understand why you're (still) seeing some failure. Okay to drop it, or
maybe we can rename it to something that more clearly indicates that we're
waiting on some external project to apply a fix. 
3 Dec
3 Dec
8:03 a.m.
Hi Patrick,
On 11/26/19 7:29 PM, Patrick Donnelly wrote:
Currently we have these open statuses:
New
Triaged
Verified
Need More Info
In Progress
Feedback
Need Review
Need Test
Testing
Pending Backport
Pending Upstream
It seems to me many of these are mostly unused making their presence
confusing to newcomers. I propose we prune these down to:
New: default for new trackers; ideally this list should be short and
regularly looked at.
Triaged: it's been looked at by PTL/team member and could be assigned out.
Need More Info: can't be worked on without more information
In Progress: assignee is working on the ticket.
Need Review: upstream PR ready for review
Pending Backport: upstream PR merged; backports are pending.
Fine from a Dashboard POV - thanks for looking into this. That's exactly
the list that our issues tend to cycle through (with the exception of
"Triaged", which we don't use).
As soon as a PR has been submitted, the related issue is in "Need
Review" and the corresponding PR might change status from reviewing to
testing several times before it's merged.
What I would *love* to have are some hooks that would help with updating
the tracker automatically for the following events:
- A PR for a tracker issue has been submitted (changing the issue
status to "Need Review")
- A PR for a tracker issue has been merged (changing the issue status
to "Pending Backport" or "Resolved", depending on the
"Backport"
field)
- A Ceph release has been published (changing all issues that were
marked as "Resolved" for this release to "Closed")
Lenz
--
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH - Maxfeldstr. 5 - 90409 Nuernberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)
10:47 p.m.
Using this thread to propose a suggestion - It would really help if we
could add a field(or status or an indicator of some sort) to tracker
issues to indicate follow-on fixes. Since we now have a "Pull request
ID:" field, follow-on fixes that get mentioned in comments tend to get
ignored, sometimes resulting in incomplete backports.
Neha
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 4:04 AM Lenz Grimmer <lgrimmer(a)suse.com> wrote:
Hi Patrick,
On 11/26/19 7:29 PM, Patrick Donnelly wrote:
Currently we have these open statuses:
New
Triaged
Verified
Need More Info
In Progress
Feedback
Need Review
Need Test
Testing
Pending Backport
Pending Upstream
It seems to me many of these are mostly unused making their presence
confusing to newcomers. I propose we prune these down to:
New: default for new trackers; ideally this list should be short and
regularly looked at.
Triaged: it's been looked at by PTL/team member and could be assigned out.
Need More Info: can't be worked on without more information
In Progress: assignee is working on the ticket.
Need Review: upstream PR ready for review
Pending Backport: upstream PR merged; backports are pending.
Fine from a Dashboard POV - thanks for looking into this. That's exactly
the list that our issues tend to cycle through (with the exception of
"Triaged", which we don't use).
As soon as a PR has been submitted, the related issue is in "Need
Review" and the corresponding PR might change status from reviewing to
testing several times before it's merged.
What I would *love* to have are some hooks that would help with updating
the tracker automatically for the following events:
- A PR for a tracker issue has been submitted (changing the issue
status to "Need Review")
- A PR for a tracker issue has been merged (changing the issue status
to "Pending Backport" or "Resolved", depending on the
"Backport"
field)
- A Ceph release has been published (changing all issues that were
marked as "Resolved" for this release to "Closed")
Lenz
--
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH - Maxfeldstr. 5 - 90409 Nuernberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list -- dev(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave(a)ceph.io 
4 Dec
4 Dec
12:24 p.m.
On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 18:47 -0800, Neha Ojha wrote:
Using this thread to propose a suggestion - It would
really help if we
could add a field(or status or an indicator of some sort) to tracker
issues to indicate follow-on fixes. Since we now have a "Pull request
ID:" field, follow-on fixes that get mentioned in comments tend to get
ignored, sometimes resulting in incomplete backports.
Neha
I'm not sure that the bug tracker is the best place for that. I think it
would be best to track that in the changelogs.
The kernel uses "Fixes:" tags in the commits for that, to indicate a
commit that introduced the bug being fixed. Of course, we use "Fixes:"
to indicate a tracker ticket, but you could declare some other tag to
indicate that in the changelog.
You do need to be careful to check for later fixes for any commits you
pick, but that's a scriptable problem.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 4:04 AM Lenz Grimmer <lgrimmer(a)suse.com> wrote:
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton(a)redhat.com>
Hi Patrick,
On 11/26/19 7:29 PM, Patrick Donnelly wrote:
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list -- dev(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave(a)ceph.io Currently we have these open statuses:
New
Triaged
Verified
Need More Info
In Progress
Feedback
Need Review
Need Test
Testing
Pending Backport
Pending Upstream
It seems to me many of these are mostly unused making their presence
confusing to newcomers. I propose we prune these down to:
New: default for new trackers; ideally this list should be short and
regularly looked at.
Triaged: it's been looked at by PTL/team member and could be assigned out.
Need More Info: can't be worked on without more information
In Progress: assignee is working on the ticket.
Need Review: upstream PR ready for review
Pending Backport: upstream PR merged; backports are pending.
Fine from a Dashboard POV - thanks for looking into this. That's exactly
the list that our issues tend to cycle through (with the exception of
"Triaged", which we don't use).
As soon as a PR has been submitted, the related issue is in "Need
Review" and the corresponding PR might change status from reviewing to
testing several times before it's merged.
What I would *love* to have are some hooks that would help with updating
the tracker automatically for the following events:
- A PR for a tracker issue has been submitted (changing the issue
status to "Need Review")
- A PR for a tracker issue has been merged (changing the issue status
to "Pending Backport" or "Resolved", depending on the
"Backport"
field)
- A Ceph release has been published (changing all issues that were
marked as "Resolved" for this release to "Closed")
Lenz
--
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH - Maxfeldstr. 5 - 90409 Nuernberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list -- dev(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave(a)ceph.io
5 Dec
5 Dec
5:54 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 10:29 AM Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Currently we have these open statuses:
New
Triaged
Verified
Need More Info
In Progress
Feedback
Need Review
Need Test
Testing
Pending Backport
Pending Upstream
It seems to me many of these are mostly unused making their presence
confusing to newcomers. I propose we prune these down to:
New: default for new trackers; ideally this list should be short and
regularly looked at.
Triaged: it's been looked at by PTL/team member and could be assigned out.
Need More Info: can't be worked on without more information
In Progress: assignee is working on the ticket.
Need Review: upstream PR ready for review
Pending Backport: upstream PR merged; backports are pending.
So I've gone ahead and made the above changes.
Verified -> New (Sorry, I meant to move this to "Triaged" but hit the
wrong status.)
Feedback -> New
Need Test -> "Fix Under Review"
Testing -> "Fix Under Review"
Pending Upstream -> "Fix Under Review"
"Fix Under Review" is my attempt at finding a better status name than
"Needs Review". That's easy to change if anyone has a better
suggestion.
I saw Matt's note about RGW using "Testing" and "Need Test". I
agree
with Sage it's easier to track the PR's progress in the PR itself.
Keeping the redmine issue status in sync is unnecessary busy work.
--
Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D.
He / Him / His
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Sunnyvale, CA
GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D
7:23 p.m.
Did this change break something?
"Status changed from 15 to Fix Under Review"
How do we know what the previous status was?
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:55 AM Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 10:29 AM Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell(a)redhat.com> wrote:
--
Cheers,
Brad
Currently we have these open statuses:
New
Triaged
Verified
Need More Info
In Progress
Feedback
Need Review
Need Test
Testing
Pending Backport
Pending Upstream
It seems to me many of these are mostly unused making their presence
confusing to newcomers. I propose we prune these down to:
New: default for new trackers; ideally this list should be short and
regularly looked at.
Triaged: it's been looked at by PTL/team member and could be assigned out.
Need More Info: can't be worked on without more information
In Progress: assignee is working on the ticket.
Need Review: upstream PR ready for review
Pending Backport: upstream PR merged; backports are pending.
So I've gone ahead and made the above changes.
Verified -> New (Sorry, I meant to move this to "Triaged" but hit the
wrong status.)
Feedback -> New
Need Test -> "Fix Under Review"
Testing -> "Fix Under Review"
Pending Upstream -> "Fix Under Review"
"Fix Under Review" is my attempt at finding a better status name than
"Needs Review". That's easy to change if anyone has a better
suggestion.
I saw Matt's note about RGW using "Testing" and "Need Test". I
agree
with Sage it's easier to track the PR's progress in the PR itself.
Keeping the redmine issue status in sync is unnecessary busy work.
--
Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D.
He / Him / His
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Sunnyvale, CA
GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list -- dev(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave(a)ceph.io
7:35 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:23 PM Brad Hubbard <bhubbard(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Did this change break something?
"Status changed from 15 to Fix Under Review"
How do we know what the previous status was?
I think the issue is that I deleted the associated status after I did
the mass change. The emails that went out maybe lost the ability to
index the status id (presumably) with the status name?
Anyway, it must have been one of "Need Test"/"Testing"/"Pending
Upstream".
--
Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D.
He / Him / His
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Sunnyvale, CA
GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D
7:37 p.m.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:35 AM Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:23 PM Brad Hubbard <bhubbard(a)redhat.com> wrote:
It's not just the emails, that came from the tracker comment itself so
we have lost some history.
Did this change break something?
"Status changed from 15 to Fix Under Review"
How do we know what the previous status was?
I think the issue is that I deleted the associated status after I did
the mass change. The emails that went out maybe lost the ability to
index the status id (presumably) with the status name?
Anyway, it must have been one of "Need Test"/"Testing"/"Pending
Upstream".
--
Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D.
He / Him / His
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Sunnyvale, CA
GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D
--
Cheers,
Brad
7:44 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:38 PM Brad Hubbard <bhubbard(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:35 AM Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Yes, apparently :( Here's one example: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15623
Updated by Samuel Just about 3 years ago
Status changed from In Progress to 7
...
Updated by Patrick Donnelly about 2 hours ago
Status changed from 7 to Fix Under Review
Unfortunately I don't see a way around that (retroactively or
otherwise) if we actually want to prune down the number of statuses.
--
Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D.
He / Him / His
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Sunnyvale, CA
GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:23 PM Brad Hubbard <bhubbard(a)redhat.com> wrote:
It's not just the emails, that came from the tracker comment itself so
we have lost some history.
Did this change break something?
"Status changed from 15 to Fix Under Review"
How do we know what the previous status was?
I think the issue is that I deleted the associated status after I did
the mass change. The emails that went out maybe lost the ability to
index the status id (presumably) with the status name?
1609
days inactive
1618
days old
11 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Brad Hubbard -
Ilya Dryomov -
Jeff Layton -
Lenz Grimmer -
Matt Benjamin -
Neha Ojha -
Patrick Donnelly -
Sage Weil