[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipse-dev] Clarification on use of iplog flag


The contributed flag is no longer needed. The iplog flag gives the same information but at finer granularity.  Since we haven't fully converted the old IP data to the new format, please don't remove the "contributed" flag from old bugs though (things fixed in 3.4 or earlier).

John

Boris wrote on 07/15/2008 11:52:16 AM:

> Are we still supposed to add the "contributed" keyword to bugs, or is
> this no longer required now that there is the "iplog" flag?
>
> Boris
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, John Arthorne
> <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but it's helpful to add a comment to that effect in the bug (e.g.,
> > "released modified version of patch x").  The intent here is just to capture
> > basic data about who made the contribution, who released it, the approximate
> > size, etc. CVS itself will record the exact change that was committed so
> > someone can always compare that to the attachment to see who did what.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > Adam Archer/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> > Sent by: eclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > 07/14/2008 03:44 PM
> >
> > Please respond to
> > "General development mailing list of the Eclipse project."
> >  <eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To
> > "General development mailing list of the Eclipse project."
> > <eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > cc
> > eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, eclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject
> > Re: [eclipse-dev] Clarification on use of iplog flag
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If modifications are made to a contributed patch before it is committed,
> > should the initial patch still be flagged in the same manner?
> >
> > Adam Archer
> > Jazz Developer
> > IBM Toronto Lab
> >
> > John Arthorne/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
> > Sent by: eclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > 07/14/2008 03:24 PM
> >
> > Please respond to
> > "General development mailing list of the Eclipse project."
> >  <eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > To
> > eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > cc
> > Subject
> > [eclipse-dev] Clarification on use of iplog flag
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > There has been some confusion about the new "iplog" flag so I should
> > clarify. The "iplog" flag should be set on the *attachment* that contains
> > the contribution. This is done by clicking "Details" next to the attachment,
> > and then setting the "iplog" flag for that attachment. If there are multiple
> > attachments being contributed, add the flag for each applicable attachment.
> > This allows the system to automatically harvest data about the size of the
> > contribution, who contributed it (the person who added the attachment), and
> > the committer who processed the contribution (the person who set the
> > "iplog+" flag).
> >
> > There is also an "iplog" flag for the entire bug report next to the "review"
> > and "pmc_approved" flags.  This flag should only be used if the contribution
> > is not in the form of an attachment. For example, you can use this if the
> > contributor added code or pseudo-code directly in the comment field.  The
> > simple solution in this case is to ask the contributor to attach a proper
> > patch so it can be flagged. If this is not possible or the contributor
> > doesn't respond, you can resort to setting the global "iplog" flag on the
> > bug itself. What this flag does is flag every non-committer who added a
> > comment to the bug as contributors. If there are comments in the same bug
> > that are not part of the contribution, they then need to be excluded
> > manually by editing the project IP log. See the IP log documentation for
> > more details.
> >
> > http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/Automatic_IP_Log#Contributors
> >
> > John
> >
> > John Arthorne/Ottawa/IBM
> >
> > 07/09/2008 11:51 AM
> >
> > To
> > eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > cc
> > Subject
> > Architecture meeting notes - July 9, 2008
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please send 3.4 retrospective feedback to Philippe by end of this week. This
> > includes what worked well, what didn't work, and ideas for improving our
> > development process for future development.
> >
> > All committers should start using the automatic IP log system for marking
> > contributed patches. This replaces use of the "contributed" keyword in
> > bugzilla. Now, the individual attachment that is accepted should be marked
> > with the "iplog" flag to allow IP contribution data to be harvested
> > automatically. For complete details, including how to handle various corner
> > cases, see:
> >
> > http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/Automatic_IP_Log