[webkit-dev] Bugzilla flood by the commitbot ?(was: First Early Warning System (EWS) bot online)

[tonikitoo (Antonio Gomes)]

Speaking of which, I also love the commit bot thing, but IMO when it
commits a R+ and CQ+ patch, it submits too much (three) entries to the
bugzilla:

1) one cc'ing eseidel at chromium.org
2) one doing the commit itself
3) and finally marking the bug as FIXED.

@Eric, Adam, is there a way to reduce that to two or even on submit to
bugzilla ? e.g. merge _1_ and _3_ maybe ...

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:42 AM, tonikitoo (Antonio Gomes)
>> <tonikitoo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Q) Why doesn't the EWS post a success message?  I like positive
>>>> re-enforcement.
>>>> A) I'm worried about spamming bugs with too many happy status
>>>> messages.  If we have N ports with EWS bots, we don't want to have N
>>>> happy status messages.  Eric and I have some ideas for a more passive
>>>> success indicator.  Once things are running smoothly, we can share
>>>> some mocks with the list.
>>>
>>> I particularly like not spamming bugzilla in case of successful
>>> builds, and IMO the code-style bot should not post a message either in
>>> case of no errors.
>>
>> I agree, but this behavior was specifically required by Maciej when we
>> brought the bot online.
>
> s/required/requested/
>
>>  I'd be happy to change it if that's what
>> folks would prefer.  One possibility is to incorporate the status
>> bubbles directly into bugs.webkit.org directly instead of requiring
>> the extension.  I find the status bubbles easier to use than hunting
>> for the success / failure message when reviewing a patch.
>
> I think something like the status bubbles would be more useful than the
> success comment, though I also find the success comment more useful than
> nothing.
>
>  - Maciej
>
>



-- 
--Antonio Gomes