[arch-dev-public] Switching the bugtracker to Bugzilla

Jelle van der Waa jelle at vdwaa.nl
Wed Nov 15 08:36:32 UTC 2017

On 11/15/17 at 09:07am, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 at 20:30:21, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> > It's time to switch our to something which is maintained and can be extended to
> > our wishes. Flyspray isn't actively maintained, has had several security issues [1] [2].
> > [...]
> Great!

Thanks! Most of the credit goes to Bluewind for coming up with the idea
and poking me about the status ;-)

Note that Bugzilla, also has an REST API, which unlocks some more

> > # 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
> > 
> > In either case, I believe it would be nice to "archive" the current bugtracker and make it read
> > only.
> Doing no migration and having an archive of the current tickets sounds
> like a good idea to me -- I can only talk about the aurweb project and
> the packages projects, though -- maintainers of other components might
> disagree.

Ok, but it seems Allan would love to migrate all of his bugs, so we
could see if that would be possible for aurweb as well. The biggest
migration would be for packages.

> After the migration, I would go through the open aurweb tickets on the
> Flyspray archive, create new tickets for the most important issues
> (should not be more than 10), fix/implement some of the easy stuff and
> close the tickets which I think are not worth fixing or implementing.

> > # 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.
> Sounds good to me, although I do not see the benefit of doing this if we
> do not migrate tickets. If users need to reset their passwords, they can
> as well reregister. There aren't too many things to configure and the
> profile settings in Flyspray will likely not match what you can
> configure in Bugzilla anyways.

We currently have 12821 users in flyspray, of which there are ~ 50 with
invalid email addresses and I'm not sure how many are actually 'active',
since flyspray doesn't log the last logged in date.

> Generally speaking, I am in favor of setting up a fresh Bugzilla
> instance and not doing any sort of migration. The idea of switching to a
> new bug tracker came up at least four years ago and my feeling is that
> all this migration work is what was holding it back for a long time.
> However, we should make sure that the old Flyspray URLs still work (and
> redirect to the Flyspray archive).

Setting up Bugzilla in Ansible, and figuring how to auto-create and sync
products will still be some effort. And we have to make sure that
Bugzilla, isn't as slow as it's showcased ;-)

My todolist is here:


> > * Release engineering
> Sounds good to me. I would split [core] and [extra]. I would also call
> the packages projects "[core] packages", "[extra] packages" and
> "[community] packages"; unless there are technical limitations
> preventing the use of brackets. These brackets make it much clearer that
> the names are referring to pacman repositories; and to a novice Arch
> user, it may not be 100% clear what a "community package" or an "extra
> package" is.

I'm in favor, this should make it more clear where to report bugs, also
with the automatic product selection.

Jelle van der Waa
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20171115/b1b1f8b9/attachment.asc>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list