RFR: Filing bug, ProblemListing, Backing out [v2]

[David Holmes]

Hi Igor,

On 7/07/2020 8:36 am, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 22:25:58 GMT, Jesper Wilhelmsson <jwilhelm at openjdk.org> wrote:
> 
>>> src/next.md line 154:
>>>
>>>> 153: #. Close the original JBS issue **(O)**.
>>>> 154:    * "Verify" the issue and choose "Fix Failed".
>>>> 155: #. If the intention is to fix the change and submit it again, create a redo-issue **(R)** to track that the work
>>>> still needs to be done.
>>>
>>> I have strong objections to fix failed ever being used and oppose it being recommended here. Unless the fixer and their
>>> reviewers completely failed at their job what you usually have is some other problem caused by the fix and the fix
>>> actually succeeded.
>>
>> I guess this is a question for those who normally handle fix verification and may have scripts that look for different
>> verifications.
>> There's only four values to choose from: "None", "Verified", "Not verified", and "Fix failed".
>> "Verified" means that the fix solved the problem and no more action is required, so this is clearly not right. "Not
>> verified" seems wrong since it actually was verified that the fix caused problems - or it wouldn't need to be backed
>> out. "None" could be used in my mind, but I can imagine that there are filters that treats "None" as issues that needs
>> verification. So changing to using this would probably cause problems. That leaves "Fix failed".  Maybe Joe knows why
>> this was designed as it is?  Anyhow, it is the current process and we need to bring it up with the right people before
>> changing it.
> 
> AFAIK, The verification process isn't part of any OpenJDK process and is used/done mainly internally by Oracle. why do
> you think that verification status should be set for all backed out issues?

That was the process that was defined. If a fix has to be backed out 
then the fix is considered to have "failed".

David
-----

> -------------
> 
> PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/guide/pull/21
>