[Development] Issues with 'Fixes' keyword

[Kari Oikarinen]

On 18.1.2019 15.12, Frederik Gladhorn wrote:
> On torsdag 27. desember 2018 11:05:28 CET Christian Ehrlicher wrote:
>> Am 27.12.2018 um 10:52 schrieb Allan Sandfeld Jensen:
>>> It has been for me. I always put bugs I have a patch in review for "in
>>> progress", and they have been consistently closed, except one time I found
>>> a bug in the script that was then closed. You have probably run into
>>> another bug. What else was special in this case?
>>
>> I did not saw an obvious difference. Looks like there are others which
>> are not closed in reporting state:
>> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-48505
>> Maybe they're all in dev? At least my last ones for 5.12 were closed
>> automatically.
> 
> I've been side-tracked, so I simply didn't get around to investigating this.
> Since having only me maintain this is not  a good idea, I'd like to make the
> sources to the fixes bot available. It's not much code. I'd have done that
> already, but then I was pondering which repository it should live in.
> Currently I have the bot in a Qt Company internal repository. It's about 150
> commits, a few Python files and tests.
> 
> Should this be a new repository on its own? Or would one of the existing repos
> be sensible?

It's not the only automation we have to help development. Based on Gerrit groups
there are at least:

- Qt Cleanup Bot
- Qt CI Bot
- Qt Forward Merge Bot
- Qt Doc Bot
- Qt Sanity Bot
- Qt Submodule Update Bot

To be honest I don't know where these reside. Perhaps some of them aren't even
codebases by themselves (I suspect the CI bot is just an identity for Coin) or
used anymore. But one option would be to consolidate these into a single place
and put the Fixes-keyword handling there also.

qtqa/automation perhaps?

Sanity bot is in qt/qtrepotools and it's convenient, because it being part of
qt5 allows running it locally in a post-commit hook. That's not true for other
bots.

-- 
Kari