Simplifying Ceph Project Redmine Open Statuses
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
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@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@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@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
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@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@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@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@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
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@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.
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
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)
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@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@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
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@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@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
Dev mailing list -- dev@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
-- Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 10:29 AM Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell@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
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@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 10:29 AM Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell@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 _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
-- Cheers, Brad
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:23 PM Brad Hubbard <bhubbard@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
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:35 AM Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:23 PM Brad Hubbard <bhubbard@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?
It's not just the emails, that came from the tracker comment itself so we have lost some history.
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
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:38 PM Brad Hubbard <bhubbard@redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:35 AM Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:23 PM Brad Hubbard <bhubbard@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?
It's not just the emails, that came from the tracker comment itself so we have lost some history.
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
participants (8)
-
Brad Hubbard
-
Ilya Dryomov
-
Jeff Layton
-
Lenz Grimmer
-
Matt Benjamin
-
Neha Ojha
-
Patrick Donnelly
-
Sage Weil