FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:31 PM
David Hrbáč
 
Default handling ABRT

Dne 26.11.2010 20:21, Karanbir Singh napsal(a):
> On 11/26/2010 07:19 PM, David Hrbáč wrote:
> Not entire sure if upstream would be happy to have that in, and once we
> release something - its quite hard to completely remove it from the wild.
>
> I guess its a question we can ask
>
> - KB

I know, it's just a question of price.
- BZ includes xml-rpc interface, mantis does not.
- you'd need mantisconnect, it's soap interface to mantis, it means abrt
rewrite
- or we need own xml-rpc server, better with the same function set as BZ
as not to rewrite abrt
DH
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:35 PM
Matt Rose
 
Default handling ABRT

> On 11/26/2010 07:21 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
>>> I would be happy with that personally. But I *would* like to take steps
>>> to make sure that CentOS installs dont hit resources not hosted at
>>> *.centos.org
>> But i'm still thinking that the specific abrt plugin to report bugs in
>> the centos mantis bug report system should be postponed, except if a
>> python guru can write it in 2 minutes and that it can be tested directly
>> in the QA process.
>
> Aologies for not being clear on this - but that's mostly what I meant;
> we can retain abrt but disable it from hitting non .centos.org places;
> in the mean time do the work for making abrt work against bugs.c.o and
> ship that once its ready.
>
> Lets see what Yoinier comes back with. He will almost certainly need to
> look at both the bits of code and then do an estimate on how much work
> is needed and how long its likely to take. We would / could then decide
> on the 6.0/6.1 timeline.

from a quick once-over of the code, resubmitting to a bugzilla instance
hosted at centos only requires a change to a config file. I'm gonna try
building it and see if there's anything more regarding plugins that we can
disable at runtime, but this looks quite easy *if* we have a bugzilla.c.o.

I'm monitoring the bug. I'll put anything that I find in there.

Matt

> - KB
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
>

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:41 PM
David Hrbáč
 
Default handling ABRT

Dne 26.11.2010 20:27, Fabian Arrotin napsal(a):
> Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> On 11/26/2010 07:19 PM, David Hrbá?? wrote:
>>> I'd stick with bugzilla instance.
>>> - upstream provides updates for abrt<->bz integration
>>> - it's working now, we need only bz instance

Right.

>
> Well, a second reading on David's post leads me to the conclusion that
> he wanted to report to bugzilla, but not upstream :-)
>
>>> - no need for someone to track upstream and implement changes downstream

I mean, once we are going to pluging/rewrite, we need someone to track
abrt upstream and propagate them into downstream/centos plugin. Also
there will be work with mantis upstream down to...

> If we could only redirect to something like bugzilla.centos.org (for the
> abrt stuff) instead of upstream's bugzilla, that would be fine. There
> would still be a process of sorting real bugs from that bz instance and
> report them in mantis and/or upstream too :/
>

Right.
DH
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:41 PM
Stefan Held
 
Default handling ABRT

Am Freitag, den 26.11.2010, 20:31 +0100 schrieb David Hrbáč:

> - BZ includes xml-rpc interface, mantis does not.
> - you'd need mantisconnect, it's soap interface to mantis, it means abrt
> rewrite

This would mean heavy development on two sides (mantis + abrt) and would
be a showstoper for Centos 6. If we go down this road it would be the
best to leave abrt out now, or patch it to simply make a file with the
Data.

> - or we need own xml-rpc server, better with the same function set as BZ
> as not to rewrite abrt
> DH

There is another option, switch to bugzilla

I have no clue why Mantis is preferred by the team,
maybe someone could share the light.

--

Stefan Held VI has only 2 Modes:
obi unixkiste org The first one is for beeping all the time,
the second destroys the text.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
perl -e'map{print pack c,($|++?1:13)+ord,select$,,$,,$,,$|}split//,ESEL.$/'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:44 PM
David Hrbáč
 
Default handling ABRT

Dne 26.11.2010 20:41, Stefan Held napsal(a):
> There is another option, switch to bugzilla
>

Well, what am I talking about all the time?!? )
DH
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:57 PM
Ralph Angenendt
 
Default handling ABRT

Am 26.11.10 19:44, schrieb Karanbir Singh:
> - Remove abrt completely ( might not be the best overall solution, but
> it would surely be the fastest short term target )

I am against it, as abrt is one of the few packages which really enables
people to do serious bug reporting (especially as it downloads the
corresponding debug packages which are needed to make sense out of a
crash - and does that automagically).

> - Leave abrt in the distro, but disable chatter abilities with anything
> *.r.c; and *.fedoraproject.org ( that leaves functionality partially
> intact, but local implementations would need to adopt and go with
> whatever they want / need; this solution might not be as nice as the
> last option)

That would be my favourite solution: operate out the part where it
reports to somewhere.

> - Last option: get a plugin together that can do what's needed to file
> at bugs.c.o ( we might need a few more people to get involved with
> triage and handling of issues via that route! )

I don't see how to do that against mantis. And I am (except if someone
wants to run it) against switching to bugzilla, if possible.

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 07:01 PM
Ralph Angenendt
 
Default handling ABRT

Am 26.11.10 20:35, schrieb Matt Rose:

> from a quick once-over of the code, resubmitting to a bugzilla instance
> hosted at centos only requires a change to a config file. I'm gonna try
> building it and see if there's anything more regarding plugins that we can
> disable at runtime, but this looks quite easy *if* we have a bugzilla.c.o.

The problem is that we don't have a bugzilla.c.o, but a mantis.c.o.
Although there seems to be some xmlrpc plugin for mantis (which I
haven't checked out), probably noone has tested that yet.

The other solution would be to run a b.c.o, but that takes work to
setup, more work to get the accounts over and even more work to reimport
the bugs, afaics.

If you know about a working solution on how to do that, I'd be curious.

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 07:04 PM
Ralph Angenendt
 
Default handling ABRT

Am 26.11.10 20:41, schrieb Stefan Held:

> There is another option, switch to bugzilla
>
> I have no clue why Mantis is preferred by the team,
> maybe someone could share the light.

Because it is not a beast requiring one person to take care about it. No
idea if bugzilla has gotten better, but that also was the reason to run
mantis at work (you can do that besides your job) in favour of having
someone who understands bugzilla.

If that was an offer to help to run a bugzilla instance @centos.org,
please say so - I'd like to help out with that. Even better if we could
import mantis bugs into that.

Regards,

Ralph


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 07:04 PM
Florian La Roche
 
Default handling ABRT

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 08:44:41PM +0100, David Hrbáč wrote:
> Dne 26.11.2010 20:41, Stefan Held napsal(a):
> > There is another option, switch to bugzilla

AFAIK one of the reasons for mantis was also not to duplicate
the reports within bugzilla.redhat.com and make sure all
reports that also match for the Red Hat Enterprise Release
get tracked "upstream".

regards,

Florian La Roche

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 07:29 PM
Ralph Angenendt
 
Default handling ABRT

Am 26.11.10 21:04, schrieb Florian La Roche:
> AFAIK one of the reasons for mantis was also not to duplicate
> the reports within bugzilla.redhat.com and make sure all
> reports that also match for the Red Hat Enterprise Release
> get tracked "upstream".

Well, that is the reason to have our own bug tracker, but that is not
the reason to have two different technical platforms for that.

As said: Mantis is a much more harmless beast to handle, at least at the
time I last looked at bugzilla (somewhere in the middle of the bugzilla
2 cycle).

If that has changed and if the opinion of most people here is that it
would be better to switch to bugzilla: Sure, if somebody (or more than
one person) wants to help with it.

We could phase out mantis, but beware: We don't just need a place to
file CentOS 6 bugs against, we'd also need to track CentOS 4 and 5 bugs
in there. And we'd need a few people to look at all still open bugs in
b.c.o and decide if those should be taken over to a new bug reporting
facility or not.

And I am not sure if we - at the moment - have the time to do that
before 6 comes out.

Helpful hands are always welcome.

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:34 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org