Bugzilla workflow with review

Jeremy Allison jra at samba.org
Thu Nov 29 11:25:46 MST 2012

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 07:45:40AM -0500, Ira Cooper wrote:
> IMHO:  Separate patches == Less confusion.
> The chance that we'll get it wrong is lower, and as the branches diverge,
> which they always do, we'll be posting 2-3 patches anyways.  (One for
> master, one for 4.0 and one for 3.6 potentially.)
> And what applies on master won't always apply on 4.0 which won't always
> apply on 3.6.
> It also makes it all "complete" when you go back into a bug and go "what
> happened to close this bug."  You can read the actual code reviewed and all
> the stages of review it went through, you don't have to go digging through
> git, and have lost review history etc.

+1 on this. The reason I attach separate patches
for branches even though they may be identical to
a cherry-pick is so that the bugzilla record is
complete for what went into each branch, without
having to refer to git history.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list