| Issue 2085: | Support free text labels | |
| 2 people starred this issue and may be notified of changes. | Back to list |
In Gerrit 2.6 project specific labels were added.
This is a great feature!
What missing is a free text label to allow adding some metadata into the change set.
Examples:
1. Tests to run.
2. But URLs to resolve when merged.
A change in label should trigger plugin, so it can respond to the change.
There should be an option to clear if new patch is pushed or leave it as-is.
If that is acceptable, I would also like to suggest to support combobox style with multiple value/display, and to optionally support multi-selection.
This way we can use the underline free text label with easier mean to resolve:
Tests to Run: ______________________V
Group1/Group 1 tests
>Group2/Group 2 tests<
>Group3/Group 3 tests<
Should construct: Group2, Group3
Aug 23, 2013
Project Member
#1
edwin.ke...@gmail.com
Aug 23, 2013
> Is this the same as issue 287 ? Well, this is not entirely the same... it is an extension. When current custom labels we can add high-risk, low-risk, no-risk... But we cannot add fields with unpredictable value. For example, the bug-url that needs to be closed... it is different each change, and it can be specified multiple times. Or, which component to test, for one bug it can be C1, C2, C3 and for the other C2, C4, C5 (out of 100 so we cannot have +1 for every component and change in database...). But I may not understand entirely the issue 287 design...
Aug 23, 2013
I think issue 287 is not limited to predefined values. If this is not clear please request this extension in issue 287 .
Status:
Duplicate
Mergedinto: 287
Aug 23, 2013
> I think issue 287 is not limited to predefined values. If this is not clear please request this extension in issue 287 . OK, thanks!!!
Aug 23, 2013
Hey Edwin, I would say that it's an extension of that issue. The idea is not only to have +1, -1 (or any binary option) but to have a set of possible values to a label or as Alon says, even multiple values for the same label.
Aug 23, 2013
Ok, this is just broadening the scope of issue 287 . I think for now it makes sense to keep the complete discussion about this feature in one issue. Having the discussion spread over multiple issues makes it hard to keep an overview. This is why I suggest to continue the discussion in issue 287 . We can still split it later if needed. |
|
| ► Sign in to add a comment |