Add a new "qe-verify" flag

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

()

RESOLVED FIXED
4 years ago
4 years ago

People

(Reporter: mschifer, Assigned: glob)

Tracking

Production
x86
Mac OS X

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Reporter)

Description

4 years ago
We have been discussing on dev-quality (Desktop QA - Bugzilla keywords: Proposal) the addition of a new flag to Bugzilla to track requests for QA verification that would give us more granularity about what branches needed attention as well as the ability to track response time (how long between state changes). What we have come up with is to add a flag something along the lines the release management tracking flags.  verify-[ProductXX] with states  of with [?|+|-]  or [?|verify|noverify].

Example:

 Verify-Firefox33 = verify
 Verify-Fennec33  = noverify
 Verify-b2g-v1.4  = ?

The long term goal is to replace the use of the verifyme keyword and QA+/- whiteboard tags and move to just using this flag to signal if verification is needed. This should help people filter mail and reduce some of the bug spam from the mass changes to the whiteboard and keyboard fields as well simplify our queries

If the product specific flags seem like it might get a little out of hand we could also just use something like QE-Verify[?|+|-] and use the tracking flags to indicate which trains might require verification. 


These flags should apply to any Desktop/Android related components and be settable by anyone in QA or Development
> This should help people filter mail and reduce some of the bug spam from the mass changes to
> the whiteboard

will you still be using the qa_whiteboard field?

> If the product specific flags seem like it might get a little out of hand we
> could also just use something like QE-Verify[?|+|-] and use the tracking
> flags to indicate which trains might require verification. 

per-product flags _is_ likely to get out of hand very quickly; i recommend taking the single QE-Verify flag approach.

> These flags should apply to any Desktop/Android related components

we'll need a list of the relevant product and/or component names.

some are obvious: "Firefox", "Firefox for Android", "Core", "Toolkit".
i'm less clear if this extends to all desktop products ("SeaMonkey", "Thunderbird", "Instantbird") or others realted products ("Loop", "MailNews Core", "Mozilla Localisations", ...).

> and be settable by anyone in QA or Development

we don't have any groups which track QA or "developers", and creating a group for all developers would quickly being a nightmare to keep up-to-date.

i suggest allowing anyone with editbugs to set this flag.

note - it would be possible to allow anyone with editbugs to set the flag to ?, but restrict setting of the flag to +/- to a QA group whose members are managed by the QA team.
Flags: needinfo?(mschifer)
(Reporter)

Comment 2

4 years ago
(In reply to Byron Jones ‹:glob› from comment #1)
> > This should help people filter mail and reduce some of the bug spam from the mass changes to
> > the whiteboard
> 
> will you still be using the qa_whiteboard field?

The QA White board field is used to track specific QA  projects that do not need a long term tracking keyword or flag.

> 
> > If the product specific flags seem like it might get a little out of hand we
> > could also just use something like QE-Verify[?|+|-] and use the tracking
> > flags to indicate which trains might require verification. 
> 
> per-product flags _is_ likely to get out of hand very quickly; i recommend
> taking the single QE-Verify flag approach.
> 

Lets go with the QE-Verify then.

> > These flags should apply to any Desktop/Android related components
> 
> we'll need a list of the relevant product and/or component names.
> 
> some are obvious: "Firefox", "Firefox for Android", "Core", "Toolkit".
> i'm less clear if this extends to all desktop products ("SeaMonkey",
> "Thunderbird", "Instantbird") or others realted products ("Loop", "MailNews
> Core", "Mozilla Localisations", ...).
> 

This does not include things such SeaMonkey, Thunderbird, Instantbird etc.. but should include Loop. I will update with a more complete component list later today.

> > and be settable by anyone in QA or Development
> 
> we don't have any groups which track QA or "developers", and creating a
> group for all developers would quickly being a nightmare to keep up-to-date.
> 
> i suggest allowing anyone with editbugs to set this flag.
> 
> note - it would be possible to allow anyone with editbugs to set the flag to
> ?, but restrict setting of the flag to +/- to a QA group whose members are
> managed by the QA team.

This will be fine
Flags: needinfo?(mschifer)
thanks for the answers.  i'll set needinfo again to indicate that we're waiting on the product/component list.

here's the full list of products/components that have the firefox tracking flags enabled:

Add-on SDK             -- Any --
addons.mozilla.org     -- Any --
AUS                    -- Any --
Core                   -- Any --
Core Graveyard         -- Any --
Directory              -- Any --
Firefox                -- Any --
Firefox for Android    -- Any --
Firefox for Metro      -- Any --
Firefox Health Report  -- Any --
Firefox OS             -- Any --
Loop                   Client
Loop                   General
MailNews Core          -- Any --
Mozilla Localizations  -- Any --
Mozilla QA             Mozmill Tests
Mozilla Services       -- Any --
NSPR                   -- Any --
NSS                    -- Any --
Other Applications     -- Any --
Plugins                -- Any --
Release Engineering    -- Any --
SeaMonkey              -- Any --
Snippets               -- Any --
Socorro                -- Any --
support.mozilla.org    -- Any --
Tech Evangelism        -- Any --
Testing                -- Any --
Toolkit                -- Any --
Webtools               -- Any --
www.mozilla.org        -- Any --
Flags: needinfo?(mschifer)
(Reporter)

Comment 4

4 years ago
Lets start with these:
Core                   -- Any --
Firefox                -- Any --
Firefox for Android    -- Any --
Firefox for Metro      -- Any --
Firefox Health Report  -- Any --
Firefox OS             -- Any --
Loop                   Client
Loop                   General
Mozilla Localizations  -- Any --
Mozilla QA             Mozmill Tests
Mozilla Services       -- Any --
NSPR                   -- Any --
NSS                    -- Any --
Plugins                -- Any --
Snippets               -- Any --
Toolkit                -- Any --
Flags: needinfo?(mschifer)
Assignee: nobody → glob
i've created the "qe-verify" flag (lowercase to match existing flag names).
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 4 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Summary: Add a new Verify flag → Add a new "qe-verify" flag
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.