When to mark a bug as STAGED

[Austin English]

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Josh DuBois <duboisj at codeweavers.com> wrote:
> I was recently looking at bug 18070 in relation to a problem I had
> installing Office 2010:
>
> https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18070
>
> The last comment asks whether the bug can be marked STAGED.  In talking with
> Sebastian he questioned whether it would make sense in this case, because
> the patch in the staging tree which improves behavior is clearly a hack as
> opposed to something which is progress toward a more permanent solution.
>
> To me it made sense to go ahead and mark the bug as STAGED anyhow, to record
> the fact that one of the patches in the stating tree addresses the behavior.
> Perhaps this is one way to help associate patchsets with bugs so that we can
> tell the motivation for a particular patchset in staging.  (In this case, a
> URL on the bug also has information about the motivation, here:
> https://dev.wine-staging.com/patches/132/ ).
>
> So the question: If a staging patchset is more along the lines of a dead-end
> hack than it is progress toward a long-term solution, should bugs which are
> fixed by the patchset still be marked STAGED?
>
> My gut differed from Sebastian's, so I thought it best to ask here to reach
> a consensus.
>
> (I can see the value either way - just looking for a standard approach.)

IMO if the patch solves the bug for a user, and the patch is in
staging, it should be marked STAGED. The whole point of staging is
that the patches may not be up to par, but are good enough for some
purpose. If Office works and it didn't before, I'd say that standard
is met.

-- 
-Austin
GPG: 14FB D7EA A041 937B