[Mageia-dev] Proposal for bugzilla

[Samuel Verschelde]

Le jeudi 23 décembre 2010 15:25:10, Ahmad Samir a écrit :
> 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.

By enforcing a policy, I don't mean necessarily rejecting bad or incomplete 
values, but rather ensure that triagers and packagers take care of this field 
and correct it if needed, at least for bugs on stable releases of Mageia.

However misc's remarks about UI-side helpers (autocompletion for example, 
which would propose only the valid package versions for a given package and a 
given distribution version) could help here : if filling the field 
comprehensively becomes easy then it won't be a barrier for unexperienced bug 
reporters and then being stricter becomes possible.


> 
> 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)

We already plan to be as much versatile as we can be. However like I tried to 
explain in my long off-topic post, we will have to cope with various levels of 
quality of information and treat differently bugs concerning just "kwrite" and 
bugs concerning "kwrite-4.5.5-1mga".

Regards

Samuel Verschelde