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 Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-15-2008, 11:38 PM
"Jon Stanley"
 
Default Proposal: bugzilla component for pre-review package development

On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@math.uh.edu> wrote:

> Unfortunately when this happens, the "not ready for review" ticket
> shows up in the review queue, extremely scarce reviewer time is
> wasted on tickets that aren't reviewable, and the already huge queue
> gets even bigger. One way to deal with this is to just give these
> tickets their own bugzilla component. I'm not really sure what to
> call it, though. Maybe "Package Development", but that sounds a bit
> broad. Whatever the component is called, though, it would give these
> tickets a place to go that doesn't complicate the package review
> process.

Maybe a trac instance on hosted? Or maybe a special status whiteboard
that says "don't do anything with these" would be better than
littering bugzilla with yet more irrelevant data .

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 12:20 AM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default Proposal: bugzilla component for pre-review package development

>>>>> "JS" == Jon Stanley <jonstanley@gmail.com> writes:

JS> Maybe a trac instance on hosted?

For every separate package, when the submitters often don't even have
Fedora accounts?

JS> Or maybe a special status whiteboard that says "don't do anything
JS> with these" would be better than littering bugzilla with yet more
JS> irrelevant data .

I don't see how a component differs from a status entry in that
regard. Unless you're arguing that these things shouldn't be in
bugzilla at all, which I don't agree with. If, however, you're saying
that we (the reviewers) should still have to open a ticket and look at
its whiteboard to know we shouldn't mess with it, then I contend
that's a needless waste of a very limited resource (reviewer time).

Putting tickets that don't contain packages for review under the
"Package Review" component makes about as much sense as putting them
under "kernel".

- J<

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 12:24 AM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default Proposal: bugzilla component for pre-review package development

>>>>> "JLT" == Jason L Tibbitts <tibbs@math.uh.edu> writes:

JLT> I don't see how a component differs from a status entry in that
JLT> regard. Unless you're arguing that these things shouldn't be in
JLT> bugzilla at all, which I don't agree with.
^^^^^
Ugh, "don't DISagree with".

- J<

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 07:16 AM
"Peter Robinson"
 
Default Proposal: bugzilla component for pre-review package development

>> Unfortunately when this happens, the "not ready for review" ticket
>> shows up in the review queue, extremely scarce reviewer time is
>> wasted on tickets that aren't reviewable, and the already huge queue
>> gets even bigger. One way to deal with this is to just give these
>> tickets their own bugzilla component. I'm not really sure what to
>> call it, though. Maybe "Package Development", but that sounds a bit
>> broad. Whatever the component is called, though, it would give these
>> tickets a place to go that doesn't complicate the package review
>> process.
>
> Maybe a trac instance on hosted? Or maybe a special status whiteboard
> that says "don't do anything with these" would be better than
> littering bugzilla with yet more irrelevant data .

Problem with that is that it moves from bugzilla to trac and then back
to bugzilla once ready for review again.... even more admin work when
the reason for the discussion has come around due to there not being
enough time. At least with a new bugzilla component all the
information remains and all the information is in the one ticket.

Peter

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 07:17 AM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default Proposal: bugzilla component for pre-review package development

Le Lun 16 juin 2008 02:20, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
>
>>>>>> "JS" == Jon Stanley <jonstanley@gmail.com> writes:
>
> JS> Maybe a trac instance on hosted?
>
> For every separate package, when the submitters often don't even have
> Fedora accounts?

Moving this stuff in trac is about the most backwards idea possible.
It does not remove the problem, just shifts it to a braindamaged issue
tracker with a tenth of bugzilla's possibilities that will need to be
triaged the same way bugzilla is.

That's the "hide stuff under the carpet where it will rot in peace"
option. Except that's only good if you don't intend to be there when
the carpet will start to stink.

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 09:33 AM
Bastien Nocera
 
Default Proposal: bugzilla component for pre-review package development

On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 18:23 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> Occasionally we see a package review ticket opened for a package which
> really isn't ready for review. I'm not sure bugzilla is really best
> the place for coordinating packaging work, but some seem to want to
> use it for that and I don't really see it as being invalid. Some
> folks just want to drop a specfile but don't really want to stick
> around to maintain the package.
>
> Unfortunately when this happens, the "not ready for review" ticket
> shows up in the review queue, extremely scarce reviewer time is
> wasted on tickets that aren't reviewable, and the already huge queue
> gets even bigger. One way to deal with this is to just give these
> tickets their own bugzilla component. I'm not really sure what to
> call it, though. Maybe "Package Development", but that sounds a bit
> broad. Whatever the component is called, though, it would give these
> tickets a place to go that doesn't complicate the package review
> process.

Make the report less buggy and not show up reviews that have
non-resolved dependencies. That'll remove gnome-lirc-properties from
your list for example...

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 01:35 PM
Richard Jones
 
Default Proposal: bugzilla component for pre-review package development

On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 06:23:42PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> Occasionally we see a package review ticket opened for a package which
> really isn't ready for review. I'm not sure bugzilla is really best
> the place for coordinating packaging work, but some seem to want to
> use it for that and I don't really see it as being invalid. Some
> folks just want to drop a specfile but don't really want to stick
> around to maintain the package.

I sometimes do this (eg. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434560)
really for packages which I would like to see or don't have the time
yet to package.

Debian has a concept of 'Intent To Package' and 'Request To Package'.
ITP in particular seems like a similar thing, and they are treated
like ordinary Debian bugs.

Rich.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 02:27 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default Proposal: bugzilla component for pre-review package development

>>>>> "BN" == Bastien Nocera <bnocera@redhat.com> writes:

BN> Make the report less buggy and not show up reviews that have
BN> non-resolved dependencies.

"less buggy" is certainly loaded language. The report shows tickets
in the "Package Review" component that have no 'fedora-review' flag
set. It does that. I'm not sure how that behavior is somehow
"buggy".

In any case, that's certainly something to look it, but it's also
quite orthogonal, since it doesn't really cover the majority of the
tickets I'm looking at. Plus it's not really problematic to submit
several interdependent review tickets. I guess the report could
filter out reviews that are dependent on non-"Package Review" tickets,
but that still doesn't solve the main problem.

I'm kind of surprised there's reluctance to add a component since we
add one for every single new package. Surely they're not a scarce
resource.

- J<

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 04:57 PM
Bastien Nocera
 
Default Proposal: bugzilla component for pre-review package development

On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 09:27 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "BN" == Bastien Nocera <bnocera@redhat.com> writes:
>
> BN> Make the report less buggy and not show up reviews that have
> BN> non-resolved dependencies.
>
> "less buggy" is certainly loaded language. The report shows tickets
> in the "Package Review" component that have no 'fedora-review' flag
> set. It does that. I'm not sure how that behavior is somehow
> "buggy".
>
> In any case, that's certainly something to look it, but it's also
> quite orthogonal, since it doesn't really cover the majority of the
> tickets I'm looking at. Plus it's not really problematic to submit
> several interdependent review tickets. I guess the report could
> filter out reviews that are dependent on non-"Package Review" tickets,
> but that still doesn't solve the main problem.
>
> I'm kind of surprised there's reluctance to add a component since we
> add one for every single new package. Surely they're not a scarce
> resource.

My point is that you could fix the report rather than change anything
about the workflow.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 05:57 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default Proposal: bugzilla component for pre-review package development

>>>>> "BN" == Bastien Nocera <bnocera@redhat.com> writes:

BN> My point is that you could fix the report rather than change
BN> anything about the workflow.

I'm not trying to change the workflow. (At least not with this
proposal.) Actually it's the opposite; I'm trying to avoid having to
change the review workflow to work around people who want to use
bugzilla to track their package development and yet put those packages
in the 'Package Review' component.

- J<

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:29 PM.

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