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

[Joe Darcy]

On 7/6/2020 4:26 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 7/07/2020 8:56 am, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>>> On Jul 6, 2020, at 3:41 PM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com 
>>> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 <mailto: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".
>>
>> ok, but this meaning is a bit different from the one in the 
>> verification process, where
>>   - 'Verified' means that someone checked that the defect described 
>> in the issue has been addressed by the fix, and it actually was;
>>   - 'Fix failed' means that someone checked that the defect described 
>> in the issue has been addressed by the fix, but it actually was not, 
>> i.e. the defect still exists after the fix.
>
> I thought "fix failed" was more broadly defined as either not fixing 
> the original issue, or introducing additional breakage.
>
> In terms of backports I would expect anything marked as "fix failed" 
> to not be backported, and then the backout issue would also not be 
> backported. But sometimes it isn't that simple.
>
> But these are just my recollections from the earlier definition of the 
> backing out process. And as you note the Verification process is 
> really an Oracle specific concept exposed in JBS. I'm not sure how to 
> deal with that. There aren't really any guidelines on how to use JBS 
> in the OpenJDK process docs.
>

Admittedly it isn't easy to find, but there is a bit written about using 
JBS in the OpenJDK wiki:

     https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/general/JBS+Overview

-Joe