Patch Statuses in Launchpad (re-visited)

[Reinhard Tartler]

Daniel Holbach <daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com> writes:

> Daniel Holbach schrieb:
>>  - use "patch-needs-work" if you reviewed a patch and it needs more work
>>  (or you flat-out rejected it)
>
> Can we agree on using "Incomplete" in this case?
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITH_RESPONSE&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITHOUT_RESPONSE&field.has_patch=on
> then would be the list of bugs with patches that still need work.

That would confuse the original reporter if it wasn't him who submitted
the patch. I would consider this a pretty common case.

Moreover we need to make sure that such bugs have the assignee field set
properly because of two reasons:
  - bugs set to "Incomplete" are subject to expiration
  - we need to make clear who needs to act next on the bug. In that case
    we want the patch submitter to work on the patch, not the reporter.

At UDS kiko told me that the incomplete status could be translated to
"the developer asks the submitter to provide additional
information". That's one reason why expiration was introduced in the
first place.

>>  - use "patch-went-upstream" if you forwarded it upstream to get their
>> input before uploading it to Ubuntu
>
> If we add an upstream task, we could make use of
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.status_upstream=open_upstream&field.has_patch=on
> that are forwarded upstream and still need upstream input and
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.status_upstream=resolved_upstream&field.has_patch=on
> the patches that were forwarded upstream and the upstream bugs that have
> been resolved.

This does only work if:
 - upstream uses a bugtracker at all
 - the bugtracker is supported by launchpad
 - the bugtracker registered with launchpad properly

I'd be interested to know how many bugs with patches are affected by
these problems though.

> I repeat: untagging the "patch flag" is easier, but we lose information
> that is very important if we don't want to lose possible solutions in
> the 40k bugs we have open anyway.
>
> Let me know what you think.

I think we need to investigate these 40k bugs in more detail. I hope we
can classify them more, so it become easier to batch process them. I
furthermore think this is a discussion that should definitly happen
within the ubuntu developer community, and not solely on the bugsquad
list.

(the last paragraph is just my personal opinion since you have asked for
it)

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4