Re: Cleaning bug list

On 06/21/2012 10:51 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 21/06/12 21:32, bfo wrote:
> > Disagree. It is a page for bug reporters. I really like the gerrit migration
> > and would like to see it integrated with Bugzilla. Also always precommit
> > hooks can be implemented if developers tend to forget to put a bug number
> > into a commit message. I already stumbled upon UNCONFIRMED bugs which have
> > been fixed already and suddenly changed into RESOLVED FIXED. I would like to
> > know what is going on with the bugs at any moment.
>
> such a precommit hook doesn't work so well.  there are lots of commits
> that do cleanups, refactorings, fix build breakers, etc. none of which
> have or need a bug id.
>
> in the OOo project there was a policy that every commit include a bug
> id, and the result was that all of these build breaker fixes used the
> same notorious #i10000# number, which doesn't help anybody.

...plus, it (together with the CWS process, but the bug ID requirement 
alone was often reason enough to "just not bother to do it") prevented 
small "drive-by" fixes and enhancements from going into the code base. 
The much lower overhead (esp. for accepted committers) in LO is IMO one 
of the big benefits over the old OOo.

> i've sometimes found bugs that were already fixed on master, but in the
> vast majority of the cases the author of the commit was not aware of the
> bug, i.e. the bug was a almost-but-not-exactly duplicate of the bug the
> author mentioned, or the author had a bug in a non-fdo tracker, or it
> was just something the author found themselves or whatever.

This happens to me regularly.  Even though I try to keep an overview of 
bugzilla, I often only learn later that there actually was a bugzilla 
bug for something I just fixed because I had stumbled upon it independently.

Stephan