Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)
 

Rahul Sundaram said the following on 01/03/2008 07:35 AM Pacific Time:
> Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>>> "RS" == Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> writes:
>>
>> RS> The fact that bugz.fp.o is separate instead of being part of
>> RS> bugzilla to me, indicates that we have a problem.
>>
>> I'm having trouble understanding how a quick interface to a few set
>> queries is a problem. Surely it's a good thing that bugzilla lets us
>> do this.
>
> Enhancements like this should be part of bugzilla and not a separate
> interface. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/rpm can be modified to do this.
> The reason why we don't it is because pretty much nobody in Fedora has
> access to that bugzilla instance to make improvements that benefit
Fedora.

>
> Rahul

First someone needs to come up with a *compelling* business case for
*why* a separate bugzilla instance would truly make things better for
Fedora. This is way more complicated than creating a new bugzilla
instance so it can be customized by the community. While that might be
one "benefit" I don't think it outweighs all the factors that would go
into performing the migration and then maintaining it--I think people
underestimate how time consuming that would be.


And, if you skipped the data migration, would it really be more
efficient to work in two bugzilla instances for a year or more until all
of the supported releases were EOL?


Not that this couldn't be done in the future, but I don't think it makes
sense any time soon.


If creating addons is an area of interest why couldn't they be proposed
as a patch to Red Hat's bugzilla? Internally a project team has been
collecting requirements for the next update of bugzilla to be based on
bugzilla 3.0. When I asked Will Woods if there were any special
requirements needed by Fedora he said there were not.


If there are special changes needed for Fedora someone should start a
discussion on fedora-devel or get a wiki page going to collect the
requirements.


John

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

Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)
 

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. This is way more complicated than creating a new bugzilla
instance so it can be customized by the community. While that might be
one "benefit" I don't think it outweighs all the factors that would go
into performing the migration and then maintaining it--I think people
underestimate how time consuming that would be.


I believe, as a matter of principle, that all of the Fedora
infrastructure should be accessible to people outside of Red Hat.


If there are special changes needed for Fedora someone should start a
discussion on fedora-devel or get a wiki page going to collect the
requirements.


Something similar was actually tried a long time back with no results
but I would try doing it again if it is going to be of any use since
there is some movement happening in Bugzilla instance in Red Hat recently.


Rahul

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

Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)
 

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?

This is way more complicated than creating a new bugzilla
instance so it can be customized by the community. While that might be
one "benefit" I don't think it outweighs all the factors that would go
into performing the migration and then maintaining it--I think people
underestimate how time consuming that would be.


As a former upstream bugzilla developer, and co-maintainer of various
bug instances, it really isn't that much work unless you make it much
more work. Forking bugzilla without getting patches upstream (because
many of RH's changes don't make sense for upstream), like Red Hat's is a
good way of making it take more work. I'm not saying that Red Hat's
bugzilla team is doing needless work, because I know they don't and the
types of changes they need to do, but it is more work for them to write
and then to move to bugzilla 3.0, it's a _lot_ of porting work that we
wouldn't need to do.


And, if you skipped the data migration, would it really be more
efficient to work in two bugzilla instances for a year or more until all
of the supported releases were EOL?


The point is when we migrate, there would be no Fedora bugs in Red Hat
bugzilla. Zarro Boogs, even. We'd close them all out and say "if you
still experience this, please move it to $new_instance". So for Fedora,
there would only be one bug instance. RHT employees will of course need
to continue to use RHT bugzilla. But that's not of any concern here.



Not that this couldn't be done in the future, but I don't think it makes
sense any time soon.


If creating addons is an area of interest why couldn't they be proposed
as a patch to Red Hat's bugzilla?


Can't patch without the source code!

Internally a project team has been
collecting requirements for the next update of bugzilla to be based on
bugzilla 3.0. When I asked Will Woods if there were any special
requirements needed by Fedora he said there were not.


If there are special changes needed for Fedora someone should start a
discussion on fedora-devel or get a wiki page going to collect the
requirements.


The thing is... there aren't any special Fedora requirements one way or
another. We can use upstream vanilla bugzilla just fine. Or we can use
RH's instance. Or fd.o's instance or gnome's or whatever. The problem
is that sharing with Red Hat makes the Fedora part of it worse. Like
when you have to scroll down past all the myriad of Red Hat stuff just
to be able to file a bug against Fedora. Or when Fedora bugs get duped
to bugs that are marked private, or set as Blocker/Dependent on the bug.
Or when bugs get filed against Fedora, moved to RHEL, and then marked
WONTFIX in RHEL, or get fixed in RHEL but not in Fedora or whatnot. Or
when Red Hat's modifications make loading a single show_bug.cgi page
over 1MB in download size (which has since been fixed, thankfully)....


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

Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Christopher Aillon wrote:
The problem
> is that sharing with Red Hat makes the Fedora part of it worse. Like
> when you have to scroll down past all the myriad of Red Hat stuff just
> to be able to file a bug against Fedora. Or when Fedora bugs get duped
> to bugs that are marked private, or set as Blocker/Dependent on the bug.
> Or when bugs get filed against Fedora, moved to RHEL, and then marked
> WONTFIX in RHEL, or get fixed in RHEL but not in Fedora or whatnot.

Isn't this more of a reason to fix how RHT does things and less of a
reason to fork out ? All the above are valid reasons, and having
experienced them in various quanta I do agree with them

~sankarshan


- --

http://www.gutenberg.net - Fine literature digitally re-published
http://www.plos.org - Public Library of Science
http://www.creativecommons.org - Flexible copyright for creative work


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHfRdFXQZpNTcrCzMRAksxAKCj9CC0mZYCVaaBLG6Hof U3k+JZ8wCgpIcD
Y4sSu7pS8WkdkRfM8R8Roug=
=anhZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)
 

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:

The problem is that sharing with Red Hat makes the Fedora part of it
worse. Like when you have to scroll down past all the myriad of Red
Hat stuff just to be able to file a bug against Fedora. Or when Fedora
bugs get duped to bugs that are marked private, or set as
Blocker/Dependent on the bug. Or when bugs get filed against Fedora,
moved to RHEL, and then marked WONTFIX in RHEL, or get fixed in RHEL
but not in Fedora or whatnot.


Isn't this more of a reason to fix how RHT does things and less of a
reason to fork out ? All the above are valid reasons, and having
experienced them in various quanta I do agree with them


There's a dedicated team working on bz.rh.com to fix a lot of this stuff.
It might benefit us to get Dave Lawrence to keep us updated on what
changes are happening in bz, and how those changes might benefit Fedora.


--g

--
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"

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

Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)
 

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:

There's a dedicated team working on bz.rh.com to fix a lot of this stuff. It
might benefit us to get Dave Lawrence to keep us updated on what changes are
happening in bz, and how those changes might benefit Fedora.


In fact...

...Dave, any chance you can follow this thread and maybe tell us if the
new changes are addressing any of these concerns?


https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00072.html

--g

--
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"

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

Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)
 

On Jan 3, 2008 9:59 AM, Christopher Aillon <caillon@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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?
>


The business case is simple:

1) The two projects have competing interests due to NDA's etc for what
bugs might or might not be public. Seperating the data completely
should be a safer position than trying to manage it in one data set.

2) The ability to 'hack' the bug system to meet Fedora needs is
limited because it may break Red Hat issues that are covered under
various laws and regulations they must follow. Seperating them makes a
better business case.

3) Less headaches for Red Hat IS when they have enough on their plate.

Now I don't know what the timeline for Bugzilla 3.0 or if that one
will have the pump and flow mechanism of being able to link bugs from
one bugzilla instance to another (gnome to fedora, fedora to gnome,
etc etc) so that duplicates can be handled better...

I know that isn't formal business case language.. but would have been
good enough in the old days (dag-nabbit) to get a project on the list
to be green/red lighted

--
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

Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)
 

On 01/03/2008 10:01 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

Now I don't know what the timeline for Bugzilla 3.0 or if that one
will have the pump and flow mechanism of being able to link bugs from
one bugzilla instance to another (gnome to fedora, fedora to gnome,
etc etc) so that duplicates can be handled better...


But it's dependent on when Red Hat gets their changes forward ported.
Whereas Fedora could already be using Bugzilla 3.0 if it made things
much better to use (which it does based on the numerous improvements
seen on bugzilla.mozilla.org). And MOVED bugs has always been
supported, AFAIK. It just needs to be set up by both the sending and
receiving bugzilla admins.
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:How_to_setup_the_Bug_Moving_feature


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

Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)
 

On Jan 3, 2008 4:08 PM, Christopher Aillon <caillon@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/03/2008 10:01 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > Now I don't know what the timeline for Bugzilla 3.0 or if that one
> > will have the pump and flow mechanism of being able to link bugs from
> > one bugzilla instance to another (gnome to fedora, fedora to gnome,
> > etc etc) so that duplicates can be handled better...
>
> But it's dependent on when Red Hat gets their changes forward ported.
> Whereas Fedora could already be using Bugzilla 3.0 if it made things
> much better to use (which it does based on the numerous improvements
> seen on bugzilla.mozilla.org). And MOVED bugs has always been
> supported, AFAIK. It just needs to be set up by both the sending and
> receiving bugzilla admins.
> http://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:How_to_setup_the_Bug_Moving_feature
>

Duh.. one should not open their mouth when one hasnt looked at the
code for a long time.


--
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

Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)
 

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.


John

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