You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de> on 2010/03/23 19:40:35 UTC
Mass Changing of Bugs
And again. During a mass TM change, all changed bugs have been set to
Security. I just cleaned up that mess, moved them back open and even
restored their original component. Manually. *sigh*
I believe I noticed a pattern...
If there is ANY Security bug in the list of bugs to be changed en masse,
ALL will be set to Security. Or at the very least, it is easy to do that
by accident. There where security related bugs in that recent list.
*Please*, be extra *careful* when mass changing bugs. This happened the
second time, now. If in doubt, just do not include any security relevant
bugs in the mass change.
Someone owes me a beer.
guenther
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Mass Changing of Bugs
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 18:45, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 24/03/2010 11:42, Justin Mason wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:34, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On 24/03/2010 11:24, Justin Mason wrote:
>>>> So it sounds like, when the "Change Several Bugs At Once" option is
>>>> used, if _any_ of the bugs qualify for the above condition, _all_
>>>> of the bugs are modified accordingly. That's not desirable. ;)
>>>> Mark, is that possible?
>>>
>>> The same thought occurred to me. I'll do some checking. It'll take a
>>> little while as I don't want to test this on the live system. I'll need
>>> to take backup of the data, copy to my local machine, setup bugzilla
>>> etc, etc.
>>>
>>> On the assumption you won't need to do this again for a few weeks, I'll
>>> try and get answer for you by the end of the month.
>>
>> thanks dude, that's perfect. I doubt we'll have a release by then ;)
>
> This should now be fixed. I have tested the fix locally and everything
> looks good. I haven't tested it on the live system. I recommend you
> confirm the fix on a small number of bugs and let me know if you still
> see a problem.
Thanks Mark -- looks good from here!
Re: Mass Changing of Bugs
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 24/03/2010 11:42, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:34, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 24/03/2010 11:24, Justin Mason wrote:
>>> So it sounds like, when the "Change Several Bugs At Once" option is
>>> used, if _any_ of the bugs qualify for the above condition, _all_
>>> of the bugs are modified accordingly. That's not desirable. ;)
>>> Mark, is that possible?
>>
>> The same thought occurred to me. I'll do some checking. It'll take a
>> little while as I don't want to test this on the live system. I'll need
>> to take backup of the data, copy to my local machine, setup bugzilla
>> etc, etc.
>>
>> On the assumption you won't need to do this again for a few weeks, I'll
>> try and get answer for you by the end of the month.
>
> thanks dude, that's perfect. I doubt we'll have a release by then ;)
This should now be fixed. I have tested the fix locally and everything
looks good. I haven't tested it on the live system. I recommend you
confirm the fix on a small number of bugs and let me know if you still
see a problem.
Mark
Re: Mass Changing of Bugs
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:34, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 24/03/2010 11:24, Justin Mason wrote:
>> [ccing Mark]
>>
>> Mark, we are discussing a recent bugzilla issue -- I attempted to move
>> all bugs on the 3.3.1 target milestone to 3.3.2, and in the process
>> put them all into the Security group. this is the second time I've
>> done this ;)
>
> I noticed :) - I'm on security@a.o that gets copies of all
> security@tlp.a.o mail.
>
>> 2010/3/24 Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>:
>>> If my suspicion is correct, not so much UI but logic. Unless you
>>> actually changed anything relevant, I suspect the "don't change group
>>> restriction" at the bottom to Security, if any is in that group, or
>>> maybe a missing "reset assignee", which shouldn't need to be explicitly
>>> set either. Don't feel like testing this and generating even more bug
>>> mail, though.
>>
>> Yep, I explicitly made sure to choose the "don't change group restriction"
>> option for the Security group, and "--do_not_change--" for Components.
>> But it still modified the groups. :(
>>
>> I think this is a Bugzilla bug. Quoting an old mail:
>>
>> ] This is according to the changes by Mark Thomas, sent to the private
>> ] list on Jun 07, 2009. To quote from his post:
>> ]
>> ] I also made a change to the way the security related bugs are handled.
>> ] When a bug is edited if any of the following are true:
>> ] - component == security
>> ] - groups include == security
>> ] then
>> ] - component is set to security
>> ] - group is set to security
>> ] - assignee is set to security@spamassassin.a.o
>>
>> So it sounds like, when the "Change Several Bugs At Once" option is
>> used, if _any_ of the bugs qualify for the above condition, _all_
>> of the bugs are modified accordingly. That's not desirable. ;)
>> Mark, is that possible?
>
> The same thought occurred to me. I'll do some checking. It'll take a
> little while as I don't want to test this on the live system. I'll need
> to take backup of the data, copy to my local machine, setup bugzilla
> etc, etc.
>
> On the assumption you won't need to do this again for a few weeks, I'll
> try and get answer for you by the end of the month.
thanks dude, that's perfect. I doubt we'll have a release by then ;)
--
--j.
Re: Mass Changing of Bugs
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 24/03/2010 11:24, Justin Mason wrote:
> [ccing Mark]
>
> Mark, we are discussing a recent bugzilla issue -- I attempted to move
> all bugs on the 3.3.1 target milestone to 3.3.2, and in the process
> put them all into the Security group. this is the second time I've
> done this ;)
I noticed :) - I'm on security@a.o that gets copies of all
security@tlp.a.o mail.
> 2010/3/24 Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>:
>> If my suspicion is correct, not so much UI but logic. Unless you
>> actually changed anything relevant, I suspect the "don't change group
>> restriction" at the bottom to Security, if any is in that group, or
>> maybe a missing "reset assignee", which shouldn't need to be explicitly
>> set either. Don't feel like testing this and generating even more bug
>> mail, though.
>
> Yep, I explicitly made sure to choose the "don't change group restriction"
> option for the Security group, and "--do_not_change--" for Components.
> But it still modified the groups. :(
>
> I think this is a Bugzilla bug. Quoting an old mail:
>
> ] This is according to the changes by Mark Thomas, sent to the private
> ] list on Jun 07, 2009. To quote from his post:
> ]
> ] I also made a change to the way the security related bugs are handled.
> ] When a bug is edited if any of the following are true:
> ] - component == security
> ] - groups include == security
> ] then
> ] - component is set to security
> ] - group is set to security
> ] - assignee is set to security@spamassassin.a.o
>
> So it sounds like, when the "Change Several Bugs At Once" option is
> used, if _any_ of the bugs qualify for the above condition, _all_
> of the bugs are modified accordingly. That's not desirable. ;)
> Mark, is that possible?
The same thought occurred to me. I'll do some checking. It'll take a
little while as I don't want to test this on the live system. I'll need
to take backup of the data, copy to my local machine, setup bugzilla
etc, etc.
On the assumption you won't need to do this again for a few weeks, I'll
try and get answer for you by the end of the month.
Mark
Re: Mass Changing of Bugs
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
[ccing Mark]
Mark, we are discussing a recent bugzilla issue -- I attempted to move
all bugs on the 3.3.1 target milestone to 3.3.2, and in the process
put them all into the Security group. this is the second time I've
done this ;)
2010/3/24 Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>:
> If my suspicion is correct, not so much UI but logic. Unless you
> actually changed anything relevant, I suspect the "don't change group
> restriction" at the bottom to Security, if any is in that group, or
> maybe a missing "reset assignee", which shouldn't need to be explicitly
> set either. Don't feel like testing this and generating even more bug
> mail, though.
Yep, I explicitly made sure to choose the "don't change group restriction"
option for the Security group, and "--do_not_change--" for Components.
But it still modified the groups. :(
I think this is a Bugzilla bug. Quoting an old mail:
] This is according to the changes by Mark Thomas, sent to the private
] list on Jun 07, 2009. To quote from his post:
]
] I also made a change to the way the security related bugs are handled.
] When a bug is edited if any of the following are true:
] - component == security
] - groups include == security
] then
] - component is set to security
] - group is set to security
] - assignee is set to security@spamassassin.a.o
So it sounds like, when the "Change Several Bugs At Once" option is
used, if _any_ of the bugs qualify for the above condition, _all_
of the bugs are modified accordingly. That's not desirable. ;)
Mark, is that possible?
> Anyway, this is now restored, although noisily, but...
>
>> 2010/3/23 Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>:
>> > And again. During a mass TM change, all changed bugs have been set to
>> > Security. I just cleaned up that mess, moved them back open and even
>> > restored their original component. Manually. *sigh*
> [...]
>> > Someone owes me a beer.
>
> You ignored this! ;)
heh, you noticed! if this is a Bugzilla bug, the bugzilla admins
owe us both a beer. But then we owe them lots of beers for admining
our bz for so long, so we're still in debt overall there ;)
--
--j.
Re: Mass Changing of Bugs
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 00:05 +0000, Justin Mason wrote:
> /me hides
>
> oops. This is pretty crappy UI :(
If my suspicion is correct, not so much UI but logic. Unless you
actually changed anything relevant, I suspect the "don't change group
restriction" at the bottom to Security, if any is in that group, or
maybe a missing "reset assignee", which shouldn't need to be explicitly
set either. Don't feel like testing this and generating even more bug
mail, though.
Anyway, this is now restored, although noisily, but...
> 2010/3/23 Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>:
> > And again. During a mass TM change, all changed bugs have been set to
> > Security. I just cleaned up that mess, moved them back open and even
> > restored their original component. Manually. *sigh*
[...]
> > Someone owes me a beer.
You ignored this! ;)
guenther
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Mass Changing of Bugs
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
/me hides
oops. This is pretty crappy UI :(
2010/3/23 Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>:
> And again. During a mass TM change, all changed bugs have been set to
> Security. I just cleaned up that mess, moved them back open and even
> restored their original component. Manually. *sigh*
>
> I believe I noticed a pattern...
>
> If there is ANY Security bug in the list of bugs to be changed en masse,
> ALL will be set to Security. Or at the very least, it is easy to do that
> by accident. There where security related bugs in that recent list.
>
> *Please*, be extra *careful* when mass changing bugs. This happened the
> second time, now. If in doubt, just do not include any security relevant
> bugs in the mass change.
>
> Someone owes me a beer.
>
> guenther
>
> --
> char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
> main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
> (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
>
>
--
--j.