[Mageia-dev] Proposal for bugzilla

Wed Dec 22 21:25:39 CET 2010

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 01:55:02PM +0100, Frederic Janssens wrote:
+> On 2010-12-22, Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
+> > Le mercredi 22 décembre 2010 à 00:32 +0100, Frederic Janssens a écrit :
+> >> 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/).
+> >
+> > What about component not related to rpm ?
+> 
+> The 'RPM Package' field would be left blank.
+> (usually many fields are left blank)
+
+That's quite useless clutter in this case :/
+ 
+> >
+> > And do you mean srpm or rpm ?
+> 
+> On https://qa.mandriva.com/ anything goes.
+> To permit consistent searches I think we should standardise.
+> The aim would to be to as specific as needed but not more;
+> as far as I know that would be :
+> 
+> name-version-release
+> 
+> unless the bug is architecture specific, where we would have :
+> 
+> name-version-release.architecture
+
+There is already a "architecture" field, afaik, as well as a version field,
+no ?
+
+( I didn't check as I refuse to enter my password over a insecured http session ).
+
+And I think that giving rpm ( and not srpm ) will make search a little bit complex
+in some corner cases ( can will also cause problem for the next point ). 
+
+> >
+> > We should also take in account package naming change.
+> 
+> which change?
+
+Well, when a rpm change name, rename it in the field to be the new name, so not all bugs 
+are lost.
+
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+