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 01-07-2008, 08:50 PM
John Poelstra
 
Default Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

Bill Nottingham said the following on 01/07/2008 11:11 AM Pacific Time:

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

- one more application (a rather important one) that would need to be
maintained (hosting, disaster recovery, etc.) by infrastructure


_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-07-2008, 10:03 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:31 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008 2:11 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 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.

I'm not sure they don't realize it, but as always the limited number of
cycles prevails.

> > - 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.

Would these solutions be limited to a "read-only" scope?

> > 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.

+1. Is it just me, or does the scariness of moving the build systems,
etc., outside the wall seem now so much less in comparison? Scary =
hard_work + deepthought is OK, but scary = unknown_pitfalls ... not so
much.

> > - 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.

True, but of course this should be concomitant with necessary steps to
keep their reporters interested and engaged in Fedora wherever possible.

--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Project: http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-08-2008, 12:41 AM
"Luis Villa"
 
Default Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

On Jan 7, 2008 6:03 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > - 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.
>
> Would these solutions be limited to a "read-only" scope?

Maybe 'delete-only' would be more accurate? I was just responding to
the initial point, which spoke of features that need to be removed,
rather than things that need to be added.

> > > 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.
>
> +1. Is it just me, or does the scariness of moving the build systems,
> etc., outside the wall seem now so much less in comparison? Scary =
> hard_work + deepthought is OK, but scary = unknown_pitfalls ... not so
> much.

It helps when the problem space is well-defined. My sense (and I may
well be overlooking things here) is that currently there is a vague
(and accurate) sense that Fedora bugzilla is really sub-optimal, but
that no one really has a strong sense of how to fix it. I just want
everyone to not underestimate the pain of hacking bugzilla (the
codebase is vastly better than it was, but still grody) and
particularly the

> > > - 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.
>
> True, but of course this should be concomitant with necessary steps to
> keep their reporters interested and engaged in Fedora wherever possible.

Of course. I don't regret what I did to trigger this:
http://jwz.livejournal.com/154529.html

but it is possible that I could have done a better job explaining why I did it.

Luis

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-08-2008, 12:44 AM
"Luis Villa"
 
Default Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

Oops, let me finish my thought on this one:

> > > 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.
>
> +1. Is it just me, or does the scariness of moving the build systems,
> etc., outside the wall seem now so much less in comparison? Scary =
> hard_work + deepthought is OK, but scary = unknown_pitfalls ... not so
> much.

It helps when the problem space is well-defined. My sense (and I may
well be overlooking things here) is that currently there is a vague
(and accurate) sense that Fedora bugzilla is really sub-optimal, but
that no one really has a strong sense of how to fix it. I just want
everyone to not underestimate the pain of hacking bugzilla (the
codebase is vastly better than it was, but still grody) or to
underestimate the benefits that could come from good practices in an
integrated system, that admittedly don't happen right now, but which
will never happen in a loosely-coupled system without the man-decades
of work (soon to be man-century, still with no appreciably useful
result) which has been put into launchpad.

Luis

_______________________________________________
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 05:46 PM.

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