[Intel-gfx] [Regression report] Weekly regression report WW40

[Martin Peres]

On 06/10/16 13:26, Conselvan De Oliveira, Ander wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 13:11 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2016, "Argotti, Yann" <yann.argotti at intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2016, Jairo Miramontes
>>>>> <jairo.daniel.miramontes.caton at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This week regressions
>>>>> In the past we used "regression", "bisect_pending", and "bisected" in
>>>>> the bugzilla "Keywords" field. Can we start using those again, please?
>>>> I think this is a very good idea Jani. So we can start to scrub current
>>>> regression (and then igt linked one) and update accordingly.
>>>> Yann
>>> Two additional thoughts are:
>>> - add "regression_pending" (vs "regression") as well as keyword to
>>> indicate where bug reporter has doubt on the fact it is or not a
>>> regression.
>> I think it should be enough, at least for a start (or should I say
>> re-start), to freely use "regression" when things worked in the past but
>> do not work anymore. We can then drop the keyword if it's not proven to
>> be a regression.
>>
>> No strong feelings on "regression_pending", though. But I don't think
>> you can add keywords at will, I think the field only accepts a
>> predefined set of keywords. So you'd need to talk to Ander or Martin
>> (Cc'd) to get the new one to bugzilla.
>
> I don't have admin access in bugzilla, so I would just forward such requests to
> Martin.

Just tell me what you need when you all agree on the name :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Finland Oy
Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki 
Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4 
Domiciled in Helsinki 

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.