[Libreoffice-qa] minutes of ESC call ...
mstahl at redhat.com
Mon Jul 2 01:17:44 PDT 2012
On 30/06/12 00:20, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 23:57 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
>> mostly though reset attachment flags
> what's your route here ? changing to non-patch/plain-text the
> experimental/dead stuff ?
so my interpretation is that the "patch" flag doesn't mark a mime type,
but means "this is a patch that wants to be integrated and needs reviewing".
the query searches for bugs that are not resolved, and have at least one
attachment with the "patch" flag set.
from that some things follow immediately:
1. a bug with a patch that was integrated, and where the patch solves
the bug, can be resolved, and hence won't show up in the query.
2. a bug with a patch that was not integrated, and where the patch
solves the bug, can have the patch committed and then can be
resolved, and hence won't show up in the query.
3. a bug with an attachment that has the "patch" flag, but isn't meant
to be integrated (say it adds some debugging printfs to understand
the problem), can simply have its "patch" flag removed, which means
it won't show up in the query.
this one is more tricky:
4. a bug with an attachment that has the "patch" flag, but where the
patch only solves the problem partially (e.g. many easy hacks)
offers 2 options to remove it from the query result:
a) remove the "patch" flag from the attachment
b) set the "obsolete" flag on the attachment
the main difference is that with b) the attachment won't show up
any more in the list of attachments (but actions on it will still
show up in the comments); i don't have an opinion which of a) or b)
More information about the Libreoffice-qa