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 > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-04-2008, 07:02 PM
"Stephen John Smoogen"
 
Default Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

On Jan 4, 2008 6:20 AM, John Poelstra <poelstra@redhat.com> wrote:
> Christopher Aillon said the following on 01/03/2008 08:59 AM Pacific Time:
> > On 01/03/2008 05:25 PM, John Poelstra wrote:
> >> First someone needs to come up with a *compelling* business case for
> >> *why* a separate bugzilla instance would truly make things better for
> >> Fedora.
> >
> > *Business* case?
>
> Okay, maybe that is too "corporate speak"
>
> Up until now the rationale I've seen has mostly been "we should do this
> because Fedora should do all of its own stuff" or "if we had a separate
> instance everything would be better". So far I haven't found any of
> these arguments to be compelling enough in the face of the disruption it
> would cause to Fedora and Red Hat.
>
> Would we be creating more new problems than we are solving?
>
> Reading the rest of what you posted (which is one of the best
> explanations I've seen on this topic so far) it sounds like we disagree
> on the impact of changing.
>

To be honest, I think the business case would have to show that there
is lowering of cost of doing business in Fedora, and/or lowering the
cost of doing business in Red Hat.

The bonuses I see for another bugzilla is that it would allow for
better/faster integration with other organizations bugzilla's. The
amount of making sure that this doesn't break Red Hat business
continuity can grind things into low gear for a project that likes to
have things up in a beta form by end of the week, and ready for
production by the end of the month. The lower cost to Red Hat would be
less needs on a team that needs to focus on paying products versus
what time they have for something.

--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-07-2008, 06:11 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

John Poelstra (poelstra@redhat.com) said:
> Okay, maybe that is too "corporate speak"
>
> Up until now the rationale I've seen has mostly been "we should do this
> because Fedora should do all of its own stuff" or "if we had a separate
> instance everything would be better". So far I haven't found any of these
> arguments to be compelling enough in the face of the disruption it would
> cause to Fedora and Red Hat.
>
> Would we be creating more new problems than we are solving?

Benefits:

- ease of incorporating new upstream versions
- with those versions, easier to move bugs and link them to other
upstream bug trackers
- able to wipe out old bugs
- removal of various non-upstream 'features' that RH uses that Fedora
doesn't need

Demerits:

- RH developers no longer have one-stop shopping
- would need RH changes to support moving bugs to RH bugzilla
- would need to run our own instance
- would wipe out old bugs

That's my 10-second view.

Bill

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-07-2008, 06:26 PM
Mike McGrath
 
Default Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Bill Nottingham wrote:

> John Poelstra (poelstra@redhat.com) said:
> > Okay, maybe that is too "corporate speak"
> >
> > Up until now the rationale I've seen has mostly been "we should do this
> > because Fedora should do all of its own stuff" or "if we had a separate
> > instance everything would be better". So far I haven't found any of these
> > arguments to be compelling enough in the face of the disruption it would
> > cause to Fedora and Red Hat.
> >
> > Would we be creating more new problems than we are solving?
>
> Benefits:
>
> - ease of incorporating new upstream versions
> - with those versions, easier to move bugs and link them to other
> upstream bug trackers
> - able to wipe out old bugs
> - removal of various non-upstream 'features' that RH uses that Fedora
> doesn't need
>
> Demerits:
>
> - RH developers no longer have one-stop shopping
> - would need RH changes to support moving bugs to RH bugzilla
> - would need to run our own instance
> - would wipe out old bugs
>
> That's my 10-second view.

Just so I know (and feel free to contact me off list) but does anyone here
know exactly how far off RH's bugzilla is from upstream and why the
patches have not been accpeted by upstream?

-Mike

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-07-2008, 06:31 PM
"Luis Villa"
 
Default Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

On Jan 7, 2008 2:11 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> wrote:
> John Poelstra (poelstra@redhat.com) said:
> > Okay, maybe that is too "corporate speak"
> >
> > Up until now the rationale I've seen has mostly been "we should do this
> > because Fedora should do all of its own stuff" or "if we had a separate
> > instance everything would be better". So far I haven't found any of these
> > arguments to be compelling enough in the face of the disruption it would
> > cause to Fedora and Red Hat.
> >
> > Would we be creating more new problems than we are solving?
>
> Benefits:
>
> - ease of incorporating new upstream versions
> - with those versions, easier to move bugs and link them to other
> upstream bug trackers
> - able to wipe out old bugs

RH bugzilla needs to do all these things too, even if RHEL Engineering
doesn't realize it yet. I'd suggest that convincing RH of this,
instead of just breaking away, is one of those ways that Fedora can
help ensure (or ideally increase) RH's continued investment in Fedora.

> - removal of various non-upstream 'features' that RH uses that Fedora
> doesn't need

I agree that it would be hard to get this without splitting, and that
Bugzilla is cluttered enough as-is, but given the other benefits of
staying upstream, I'd suggest that greasemonkey or a server-side
'fedora view' which hide these extra features are better ways to solve
this.

> Demerits:
>
> - RH developers no longer have one-stop shopping
> - would need RH changes to support moving bugs to RH bugzilla
> - would need to run our own instance

- RHEL should view Fedora as an integral part of the RHEL development
and QA process. Fedora should be doing everything it can to encourage
that belief, so that more RHEL QA happens in Fedora, rather than in
RHEL. Going in the opposite direction by making this harder is cutting
off your nose to spite your face.

> - would wipe out old bugs

Wiping out old bugs is a good thing; on balance, unless you have
*bazillions* of testers, most old bugs cost more time to regularly
test/recheck/update/etc. than they are worth.

Luis

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-07-2008, 06:48 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:31 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:

> I agree that it would be hard to get this without splitting, and that
> Bugzilla is cluttered enough as-is, but given the other benefits of
> staying upstream, I'd suggest that greasemonkey or a server-side
> 'fedora view' which hide these extra features are better ways to solve
> this.
>

It might be worthwhile to split if we could ensure one feature worked
from rh-bz to fedora bz: report migration. It'd be great if fedora bz
could have an 'add this to rh bz'. That would make interaction easier
and, hopefully, make the transition easier for rh employees.

it should be do-able, I think.

-sv


_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-07-2008, 06:57 PM
Matt Domsch
 
Default Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 02:48:43PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:31 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
>
> > I agree that it would be hard to get this without splitting, and that
> > Bugzilla is cluttered enough as-is, but given the other benefits of
> > staying upstream, I'd suggest that greasemonkey or a server-side
> > 'fedora view' which hide these extra features are better ways to solve
> > this.
> >
>
> It might be worthwhile to split if we could ensure one feature worked
> from rh-bz to fedora bz: report migration. It'd be great if fedora bz
> could have an 'add this to rh bz'. That would make interaction easier
> and, hopefully, make the transition easier for rh employees.

'add this to rh bz for product version $foo' would be even nicer. I
routinely have to dupe bugs several times, once for each affected RHEL
version, and once for each other impacted product.

Not that I like Launchpad being proprietary (and that's clearly a
showstopper here), but it has this concept of integrating with other
bug trackers in this manner (and keeping track that you did so), which
is very convenient.

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-07-2008, 06:58 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

seth vidal (skvidal@fedoraproject.org) said:
>
> On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:31 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
>
> > I agree that it would be hard to get this without splitting, and that
> > Bugzilla is cluttered enough as-is, but given the other benefits of
> > staying upstream, I'd suggest that greasemonkey or a server-side
> > 'fedora view' which hide these extra features are better ways to solve
> > this.
>
> It might be worthwhile to split if we could ensure one feature worked
> from rh-bz to fedora bz: report migration. It'd be great if fedora bz
> could have an 'add this to rh bz'. That would make interaction easier
> and, hopefully, make the transition easier for rh employees.
>
> it should be do-able, I think.

I don't see why this would require a split, though.

Bill

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-07-2008, 07:00 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

Luis Villa (luis@tieguy.org) said:
> RH bugzilla needs to do all these things too, even if RHEL Engineering
> doesn't realize it yet. I'd suggest that convincing RH of this,
> instead of just breaking away, is one of those ways that Fedora can
> help ensure (or ideally increase) RH's continued investment in Fedora.

...

> - RHEL should view Fedora as an integral part of the RHEL development
> and QA process. Fedora should be doing everything it can to encourage
> that belief, so that more RHEL QA happens in Fedora, rather than in
> RHEL. Going in the opposite direction by making this harder is cutting
> off your nose to spite your face.

I don't disagree with you.

Bill

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-07-2008, 07:02 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 13:57 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 02:48:43PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:31 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> >
> > > I agree that it would be hard to get this without splitting, and that
> > > Bugzilla is cluttered enough as-is, but given the other benefits of
> > > staying upstream, I'd suggest that greasemonkey or a server-side
> > > 'fedora view' which hide these extra features are better ways to solve
> > > this.
> > >
> >
> > It might be worthwhile to split if we could ensure one feature worked
> > from rh-bz to fedora bz: report migration. It'd be great if fedora bz
> > could have an 'add this to rh bz'. That would make interaction easier
> > and, hopefully, make the transition easier for rh employees.
>
> 'add this to rh bz for product version $foo' would be even nicer. I
> routinely have to dupe bugs several times, once for each affected RHEL
> version, and once for each other impacted product.
>
> Not that I like Launchpad being proprietary (and that's clearly a
> showstopper here), but it has this concept of integrating with other
> bug trackers in this manner (and keeping track that you did so), which
> is very convenient.
>

It seems like the only thing launchpad offers is a place to see a
summary view of bug trackers. If we can get inter-bugzilla
bug-migration/duplication happening then it seems to me that a summary
view of projects and bug trackers is python-bugzilla + packagedb, ne?

-sv


_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-07-2008, 07:02 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:58 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> seth vidal (skvidal@fedoraproject.org) said:
> >
> > On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:31 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> >
> > > I agree that it would be hard to get this without splitting, and that
> > > Bugzilla is cluttered enough as-is, but given the other benefits of
> > > staying upstream, I'd suggest that greasemonkey or a server-side
> > > 'fedora view' which hide these extra features are better ways to solve
> > > this.
> >
> > It might be worthwhile to split if we could ensure one feature worked
> > from rh-bz to fedora bz: report migration. It'd be great if fedora bz
> > could have an 'add this to rh bz'. That would make interaction easier
> > and, hopefully, make the transition easier for rh employees.
> >
> > it should be do-able, I think.
>
> I don't see why this would require a split, though.
>

b/c as it is, the process to change and get new features into rh's
bugzilla is slow and laborious, at least afaict.

-sv


_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:19 PM.

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