Mass closing EOL bugs should not close bugs with pending updates

[Adam Williamson]

On 18/02/13 12:03 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 07:12:01AM -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>>> As you can see the bugs were already ON_QA before they were closed
>>> WONTFIX.
>> But for F16 - it's true - the fix is not going to be available in F16,
>> thus WONTFIX. Correct resolution is to bump version to F17/F18 or clone bugs.
>
> If that's the case, what does "NEXTRELEASE" mean in bugzilla? "Not fixed for
> the version it was reported against but was actually fixed" seems like
> _useful data_.

Again, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#CLOSED :

"The resolution NEXTRELEASE is for use by maintainers only. It is used 
if a bug was filed for a given release, but will only be fixed for later 
releases - for instance, if a bug is filed in the current stable 
release, but the maintainer only thinks it safe or worthwhile to fix it 
in Rawhide and future releases, not the release on which it was reported."

So, theoretically, it means what you think it means.

As I always say, though, note that I wrote that policy based on my best 
understanding of the _most common_ current practice in BZ at the time, 
and I submitted it for review, and it got comparatively few comments 
when you consider just how many package maintainers there are in Fedora. 
There is no mechanism to enforce compliance with the policy, and many 
maintainers do not do things exactly as the policy says, and indeed even 
some of our official tools don't always follow the policy (*koff koff* 
bodhi *koff koff*). So it's more of a 'general guideline'. =) But that's 
what it Officially Means.

Proposed modifications to the policy are of course welcome.

There are lots of workflow problems with Bugzilla as a distribution bug 
tracker, really, if you sit down and think about it for a while (as I 
have). Bugzilla was designed for Mozilla and it really doesn't apply 
perfectly to maintaining a distribution with the complications of 
'distro version and release vs. package version and release' and the 
issues of upstream versus downstream and maintaining multiple releases 
at a time and all sorts of stuff. Given this, I find the best policy is 
just to go with whatever more or less works and not sweat strict policy 
compliance or cases of slightly-overenthusiastic scripts like this _too_ 
much: so long as we're using Bugzilla, things will always be something 
of a hack job, so just relax and live with it. If a bug doesn't use the 
correct resolution, it's usually not the end of the world. If your bug 
gets closed when it shouldn't, shrug and re-open it. At some point we 
might all get sufficiently p*ed off with Bugzilla (and sharing BZ with 
all of Red Hat's products...) to suffer the massive pain of some kind of 
radical effort to improve the process - switch to another bug tracker, 
or make some major changes to BZ - but I doubt that'll be any time soon.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net