[Mageia-dev] Proposal for bugzilla

Wed Dec 22 15:27:09 CET 2010

On 22 December 2010 01:32, Frederic Janssens <fjanss at gmail.com> wrote:
+> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 17:07, Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
+>>
+>> Le mardi 14 décembre 2010 à 17:05 +0100, Dexter Morgan a écrit :
+>> > I would like to have your input to let us able to provide a bugzilla really soon
+>>
+>> So if I am not wrong, in bugzilla, we have :
+>> - products
+>> - component, contained in products
+>> - and various field, per bug,
+>>
+>> and the way we organize everything will impact the layout.
+>>
+>
+> Yes.
+>
+> In preparation of the future interaction (by xmlrpc) between the
+> mageia-app-db site and the mageia bugzilla,  I have been testing
+> http://bugs.mageia.org/ .
+> Xmlrpc works, but it will be necessary to configure additional fields.
+> The minimum would be to add an 'RPM Package' field (such as exists on
+> https://qa.mandriva.com/).
+>
+
+That's already agreed upon, whatever it's called, RPM Package or
+Component (I am in favour of the former).
+
+> But, as the configuration must be modified anyway, I have been
+> thinking about what fields we need.
+>
+> First I think it would be usefull to have a multiline (Large Text Box)
+> 'RPM Packages' field, instead of a single line (Free Text) field as
+> used by mandriva.
+> A single bug can concern more than one rpm. One thing mageia-app-db
+> will do is search all bugs affecting an rpm. For that search to be
+> meaningfull all affected rpms should be mentioned.
+
+'One bug per report' is what we should do (did); if a bug originates
+from more than one package, a separate report for each of them should
+be opened with the Block/Dependency set correctly.
+
+> For the same reason, the way the rpms are mentioned should be 'standardised',
+> as the search done by bugzilla can only be litteral.
+>
+
+Usually one doesn't only search in the RPM Package field; experience
+tell us that the affected package name will be mentioned many times in
+both the summary and the description.
+
+And if you want to search in the RPM Package field, bugzilla has many
+options to do so, look at the bottom of:
+https://qa.mandriva.com/query.cgi?format=advanced
+
+> Something that does not exist in mandriva, but I think would be usefull, is a
+> 'Fixed RPM Packages' that would be filled when the bug is fixed. FIXED
+> is great, but where (or since which rpm)?
+>
+
+IMHO, that's trivia; either the user is savvy enough / has the time to
+trudge through the bug report to find out which package release fixes
+an issue (which indicates he's the curious type, he'll at least skim
+through the bug report anyway), or he's just going to update his
+system and get the fix (the latter happens more often).
+
+> Perhaps also an 'Upstream' field which would, eventually, indicate
+> where that bug is filed upstream.
+>
+
+That's similar to the URL field in my proposal (see my previous post
+in this thread).
+
+> Finally the "status whiteboard" could be enabled, and used to clearly
+> explain a workaround, for open bugs (instead of having to figure it
+> from the comments). (Eventually this field could also be used as the
+> 'Fixed RPM Packages' field when the bug is closed. So it would be the
+> 'Solution' field)
+>
+
+I don't think this will be adequately useful; if the issue is fixed,
+then all the user has to do is update his system. If it's not fixed
+and affects a stable release then it should get added to the Errata
+page for that release whether there's a workaround (or not); if it
+affects Cauldron, well, Cauldron users are supposed to be
+fireproof-ready, so they do read bug reports (or skim through them).
+
+> Apart from the "status whiteboard" which is a parameter to enable
+> (http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/en/html/parameters.html);
+> the fields must be added as custom-fields
+> (http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/3.6/en/html/custom-fields.html)
+>
+>
+> --
+>
+> Frederic
+>
+
+
+
+-- 
+Ahmad Samir
+