Re: Closing bugs in bugzilla: fixed in master or fixed everywhere?

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 10:46:24AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> I'd like to check if maybe I misunderstood our bugzilla handling
> standards.
>
> I thought we close the bug when the fix is committed in all branches
> where it should be, and that's what I was doing in the bugs I was
> fixing.
>
> But obviously, if our community standards are the other way round,
> I'll follow them.
>
>
> I asked because I have now lived several times now that several
> developers close a bug I'm CCed to as soon as they commit the fix to
> master.

To me, RESOLVED/FIXED means simply "the bug is fixed". Which it is as
soon as I push the fix into master.

> The disadvantage of the latter method is that these bugs appear
> crossed out in the "most annoying" (and other) lists.
>
> Its advantage, maybe, is that it goes away from said developer's
> list: their job is "finished" so it should get the hell out of their
> TODO list.

Right. Because the next step, review of my proposed fix for inclusion in
older branch(es), depends on _other_ developers.

> I've come to see this last point as not completely obvious, and maybe
> even wrong: when I commit a fix to master, I regard it as also my job
> to get it backported to the other branches,

Nobody has claimed otherwise.

> so my job on this bug is
> _not_ finished, so it makes sense for it to linger in my TODO list
> until the fix is everywhere it should.

But this part is handled separately from bugzilla, via the ML (or
gerrit).

D.