[Mageia-dev] Proposal for bugzilla

[Ahmad Samir]

On 23 December 2010 00:34, Samuel Verschelde <stormi at laposte.net> wrote:
> Le mercredi 22 décembre 2010 21:25:39, Michael scherer a écrit :
>>
>> 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 ).
>>
>
> So you think the (S)RPM field should only contain SRPM filenames ?
>
> If yes, I agree with that, because as Frederic stated above, in current Mandriva bugzilla, there's no enforced rule for that. You can put anything in the field, and you often end up with rpm filenames, or simple package names (e.g. "virtualbox").
>
> However asking bug reporters to know the SRPM is too much, so this rule can only be enforced on Packagers and Triage Team side I think. This is already how it works on qa.mandriva.com : if you know the SRPM, you put it, if not someone will triage and do it for you.
>
> Ahmad, would there be a problem in enforcing such a policy (i.e. SRPM field should be empty or contain a valid SRPM name ? Where valid means "looks like the name of a SRPM") ?
>
> Regards
>
> Samuel Verschelde
>

Actually virtualbox is a valid enough SRPM name, because if you put
virtualbox in the "RPM Package" field bugzilla will auto-assign to the
package maintainer. And putting the arch. of the package in that field
isn't so useful, there's a separate Architecture field in each report.

How do you wanna enforce this? by rejecting anything the user puts in
that field if it's not correct? well, I expect that we'll get less
reports this way, good from the triage team workload POV :), bad from
the POV that some important reports won't be filed because the user
doesn't understand what you want him to do.

I have no problem with having a report with a wrong content in the RPM
Package field, that can be fixed. So no, I am not OK with enforcing
anything here, just offering this as a guide line that it should be
'kwrite-4.5.5-1mga' rather than just 'kwrite' or 'kwrite-4.5.5' is the
best you can hope for.

(IMHO, mageia-app-db should be more versatile in the way it searches
bug reports, note that almost at any given point in time there'll be
reports that haven't been triaged yet, and so can have an empty or a
wrong content in the RPM Package field)


And about it being hard to find the name of the package, it depends,
do you think users reporting a bug read? if they read the little
paragraph under the Source RPM field here:
https://qa.mandriva.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Mandriva%20Linux&format=guided
you'll find that it states exactly how to find the src.rpm name :)

The point is, such things come with time and experience with bug
reporting, I don't expect a user to get it right the first time, but
if he still doesn't get it right with his say 15th bug report, then he
doesn't take enough care when filing the report.... and I can assure
you by that time he'll have been notified more than once about what
should be done (by triage team members, devs, package maintainers...
etc).

-- 
Ahmad Samir