Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Ping-Bug?
From: Gerald Combs <gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 16:22:06 -0700
On 8/1/14 4:06 PM, Evan Huus wrote: > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Gerald Combs <gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > On 8/1/14 3:58 PM, Evan Huus wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Gerald Combs <gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > <mailto:gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote: > > > > On 8/1/14 9:08 AM, Jeff Morriss wrote: > > > On 07/13/14 14:05, Alexis La Goutte wrote: > > >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Evan Huus > <eapache@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:eapache@xxxxxxxxx> > > <mailto:eapache@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:eapache@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote: > > >>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Gerald Combs > > <gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > <mailto:gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> On 7/7/14 9:10 PM, Evan Huus wrote: > > >>>>> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Alexis La Goutte > > >>>>> <alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx>> > > <mailto:alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx> > > <mailto:alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Evan Huus > > <eapache@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:eapache@xxxxxxxxx> > <mailto:eapache@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:eapache@xxxxxxxxx>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> > It would be nice to have different tags for > Refs-Bug and > > >>>>> Fixes-Bug, and have > > >>>>> > the bugzilla integration do The Right Thing for > changes > > that > > >>>>> refer > > >>>>> to but do > > >>>>> > not fix a bug. Gerald, how easy is this? I believe > > OpenStack > > >>>>> has a > > >>>>> set of > > >>>>> > tags they use which we might look to for inspiration? > > >>>>> +1 > > >>>>> I like OpenStack tags : > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Closes-Bug: #1234567 -- use 'Closes-Bug' if the > commit is > > >>>>> intended > > >>>>> to > > >>>>> fully fix and close the bug being referenced. > > >>>>> Partial-Bug: #1234567 -- use 'Partial-Bug' if the > commit is > > >>>>> only a > > >>>>> partial fix and more work is needed. > > >>>>> Related-Bug: #1234567 -- use 'Related-Bug' if the > commit is > > >>>>> merely > > >>>>> related to the referenced bug. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages#Including_external_references > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> How would Partial-Bug and Related-Bug differ for our > purposes? > > Wouldn't > > >>>> they do the same thing (i.e. add a comment to the bug)? Could > > we get > > >>>> away with two tags: > > >>>> > > >>>> Ping-Bug: 12345 -- Add a comment to bug 12345 > > >>>> Bug (or Closes-Bug): 12345 -- Add a comment and mark it > > RESOLVED FIXED. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Just "Ping-Bug" and "Bug" works for me. > > >> +1 > > >> (or Comment-Bug and Closes-Bug ?) > > > > > > So what are the current set of tags for this? I tried using > Ping-Bug > > > (on change 3314) and it ended up closing the bug on me... > > > > Until a few minutes ago any time "bug" followed by a number > appeared in > > the commit message Gerrit would add a comment and close it. > The specific > > JavaScript RE was "\b[Bb]ug:?\s*#?(\d+)\b". > > > > As of now Gerrit should update Bugzilla only for the following > footers. > > The RE is now "\b(?:[Pp]ing-)?[Bb]ug:?\s*#?(\d+)\b": > > > > Ping-Bug: 12345 -- Only add a comment. > > Bug: 12345 -- Add a comment to the bug and close it. > > > > > > Awesome, thanks! > > > > Just wondering, in hindsight, if we should reverse it so "Closes-Bug" > > closes and "Bug" just posts a comment. Otherwise I I'm sure somebody > > will do "blah blah blah like in bug ####" in a commit message and > > accidentally close that bug. > > The current actions should be limited to footers, so we should be safe > from "bug ####" elsewhere in the commit message. > > > The current RE are bounded by \b which is just a word boundary. Is it > safe because the RE are only run against the footers in the first place > (Gerrit does that for us?) or did you mean to bound them with ^ and $ > (which might be safer anyways). I tried ^ in the RE but it didn't work. Apparently the "multiline" option isn't enabled in commentlinks and I didn't see a way to enable it. Footers are enforced elsewhere.
- References:
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Ping-Bug? (was: master 599b880: Handle the UTC timestamps in NetMon 2.3 files.)
- From: Jeff Morriss
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Ping-Bug?
- From: Gerald Combs
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Ping-Bug?
- From: Evan Huus
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Ping-Bug?
- From: Gerald Combs
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Ping-Bug?
- From: Evan Huus
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Ping-Bug? (was: master 599b880: Handle the UTC timestamps in NetMon 2.3 files.)
- Prev by Date: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Ping-Bug?
- Next by Date: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Ping-Bug?
- Previous by thread: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Ping-Bug?
- Next by thread: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Ping-Bug?
- Index(es):