Re: Stop issue verification?

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le 26/10/2020 à 13:14, Dan Eble a écrit :
> On Oct 25, 2020, at 15:43, Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr> wrote:
> > I propose that we:
> >
> > - Remove this procedure.
> >
> > - Also remove the "Status" scoped label, adding non-scoped labels
> >    when necessary.
> >
> >    - Status::new and Status::accepted: no longer applicable since
> >      there is no longer a formal bug squad.
> I'm pretty sure I can support this in any case.
>
>
> >    - Status::fixed and Status::verified: not needed anymore if there
> >      is no verification (closed issues are fixed).
> I guess you mean "closed issues that are not tagged as invalid are fixed."


Indeed. The idea is that this case is more frequent than Invalid
or Duplicate, and thus doesn't deserve any special label.


> >    - Status::started: assign the issue to yourself if you are working
> >      on it. This appears in the UI and you also see if an issue has
> >      an associated merge request.
> Agreed.
>
>
> >    - Status::invalid, Status::duplicate and Status::shelved converted
> >      to plain labels.
> What is the value of "shelved"?  We have 3 issues with that label and I don't 
> see what makes them special.


As far as I know, the typical use case would be things like
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/979
where development moved in completely different directions,
obviating the issue.

I agree that it sounds weird to have it on open issues in
the vein of
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/2072
On the other hand, there are also many patch-tracking issues
marked "Patch::abandoned" but still open. That's likely a separate
topic. Maybe we could rename Status::shelved to "Abandoned"
instead of "Shelved"?


> > - Explicitely state in [CG 9.1] that whenever applicable, bug fixes
> >    should contain a regression test − currently it says this needs a policy.
> I would not make it a policy, but I would say that if you want your 
> contribution to work six months from now, you should make an effort to cover it 
> in regression tests.


Agreed.

Best,
Jean