JBS policy around backing out of bug fixes : was(Re: [8u40] Request for Approval: 8067039: Revert changes to annotation attribute generation)

[joe darcy]

Hello,

On 12/14/2014 4:18 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 15/12/2014 1:33 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
>>
>> On 13/12/2014 00:41, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Sean,
>>>
>>> This issue was discussed at some length when JBS was being set up.
>> David,
>>
>> I realise there was alot of discussion around JBS process when it was
>> being set up. IIRC, the custom verification field was a request from
>> Quality team to track bug fixes. For that reason, I imagine it's of most
>> interest to quality team. I normally focus on Status/Resolution fields.
>> Could I make a proposal that we mark anit-deltas with Resolution = Fix
>> Failed ? Is there any reason we can't ?
>
> You mean the bug for which the anti-delta was needed should be marked 
> Resolution=fix-failed? I don't have a problem with that, but these 
> aren't my rules.
>
>  It helps to keep JIRA queries
>> more simple and avoids having to look up a 3rd field in order to capture
>> the true state of a bug fix.
>>
>> Here's another example of a bug fix one would think was fixed in JDK 8 :
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8025198
>
> It is fixed in the JDK-8. The "anti-delta" was only a partial 
> anti-delta for the files that had been modified unintentionally. The 
> actual fix is still present.
>

I've checked my JBS notes. "Fix failed" wasn't one of the resolution 
values available when JBS went live and I'm not sure when it was added. 
In any case, for the JDK project, I don't think that resolution value 
should be used; the JBS overview

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

documents the field values I mentioned earlier (status = 
resolved/closed, resolution = fixed, verification = fix failed).

A truly failed fix is an exceptional event and I don't really think it 
is worthwhile to devote a resolution value to that case.

Cheers,

-Joe