Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Switching the bugtracker to Bugzilla
- Replying on arch-general as don't have access on dev-public - I might have missed something or proposed something which is not feasible due to the fact I'm not vary familiar with Archlinux infrastructure. On 14/11/17, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
[..] # Migration
There are several options for migrating the bug history to Bugzilla and a few options are under debate. (input welcome)
* No migration at all * Migrate open bugs * Migrate open bugs and auto-closing them * Migrate all bugs * Migrate all bugs and auto-closing them
No migration & keep flyspray as read-only. People can still reference flyspray bus and copy attachments around. It would be a good clean up for open bugs which are not-reproducable or irrelevant now.
# User migration
User migration should be possible as well, except migrating the password, a mass password reset would be wise. Since I'm not sure what kind of old hashing method / salt flyspray uses.
Yes, although this might complicate a bit if/when LDAP auth comes in place (since it will mean another migration - not sure).
# Migration Projects
Bugzilla has a concept of products with components, so for all our packages we can create a component counterpart. It should be possible to auto-assign bugs with the pkgname <-> maintainer information from archweb.
Possible products would be.
# Products
* Arch packages (core/extra or split this up) * Community packages (community) * Pacman * AURWeb * Keyring * Archweb (new) * Arch VM / Docker images (new) * Release engineering
Bugzilla products / components: * Core packages * <one compoment per package> * Extra packages * same as above * Community packages * same as above * One product per "Arch Linux Projects" repo in projects.archlinux.org * AURWeb * Archweb * bbs * wiki (did I miss something here?) * Infrastructure * Arch VM * Docker * <server purpose> admin/maintenance * Release engineering Thanks -- Leonidas Spyropoulos A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is it such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Em novembro 14, 2017 19:26 Leonidas Spyropoulos via arch-general escreveu:
- Replying on arch-general as don't have access on dev-public -
Please, don't do this. Even though we always welcome input from our users, there's a reason why this discussion was started on adp, instead of arch-general. Regards, Giancarlo Razzolini
On 2017-11-14 23:16, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
Em novembro 14, 2017 19:26 Leonidas Spyropoulos via arch-general escreveu:
- Replying on arch-general as don't have access on dev-public -
Please, don't do this. Even though we always welcome input from our users, there's a reason why this discussion was started on adp, instead of arch-general.
Regards, Giancarlo Razzolini
Just to be clear, it's completely fine thing to do. Feel free to ignore community input if you feel better this way, but don't tell people to cover their eyes when we discuss something on publicly readable mailing list. Bartłomiej
Em novembro 14, 2017 20:27 Bartłomiej Piotrowski escreveu:
Just to be clear, it's completely fine thing to do.
Feel free to ignore community input if you feel better this way, but don't tell people to cover their eyes when we discuss something on publicly readable mailing list.
Just to be (more) clear, I welcome all user input, but I don't think it is nice to re-purpose a thread and cross post it to another list. A new one would be better. Regards, Giancarlo Razzolini
On 11/14/2017 09:06 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
Em novembro 14, 2017 20:27 Bartłomiej Piotrowski escreveu:
Just to be clear, it's completely fine thing to do.
Feel free to ignore community input if you feel better this way, but don't tell people to cover their eyes when we discuss something on publicly readable mailing list.
Just to be (more) clear, I welcome all user input, but I don't think it is nice to re-purpose a thread and cross post it to another list. A new one would be better.
Well, it is standard operating policy on these mailing lists based on past experience, so please don't pick on anyone for that. :p And I don't really understand the problem anyway -- so it maintains thread continuity, isn't that a good thing if an a-d-p member is interested in and subscribed to arch-general? Anyway, the subject header makes it clear what list it came from. -- Eli Schwartz
participants (4)
-
Bartłomiej Piotrowski
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Giancarlo Razzolini
-
Leonidas Spyropoulos