You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de> on 2004/02/13 00:22:33 UTC
Re: bugzilla usage
On 12.02.2004 07:38, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> ...The dependency tree as we use it at the moment is not meant
>> blocking, but that's an obvious wrong usage of it and bugzilla as it
>> reads "bug 123 blocks 456". We really should use this only for
>> blocking issues...
>
> I disagree, these dependency lists are very useful to quickly get a
> picture of where we stand.
Hmm, a list can be created on the query page depending on the target
milestone. The only thing that is lost is the tree, but I don't know if
this is really needed.
> I think bugzilla is used
> much more now than a few months ago and find it a Good Thing.
+1
> Problem is, in a dependency page like
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=25321
> you don't see what's a blocker, what's nice to have and so on.
That works when querying the patch depending on the target milestone as
you get a normal bug list.
> An easy way to fix this would be to add [BLOCKER] to the title as we
> already do for patches.
I don't like these things that must be done by hand without any
restrictions.
>> Bugzilla provides another function to add "might be good to have it in
>> the release": target milestones. We should just add milestones for
>> every release and set value for the "might be good ..."-bugs.
>
>
> You're right but I prefer the dependency tree because of the crossed /
> non-crossed bug display.
Crossed/non-crossed means FIXED/OPEN?
> And target milestones need to be changed
> manually a lot when bugs don't make it to the expected release.
On the other hand the current solution is to arbitrary IMO. There is
absolutely no commitment to this setting "next release".
>> WDYT? Where are the bugzilla admins?
>
> Some of us have additional rights in bugzilla to be able to define
> products and components, see
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=107029869507213&w=2
> But it doesn't mean we're the rulers of bugzilla, it's as much a
> community tool as everything else.
Of course. It was not a "do it", but more a "how does it work". I never
used it, but see that the Mozilla community is using it heavily.
Joerg
Re: bugzilla usage
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 13.02.2004 07:52, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Maybe we could use target milestones for issues that *must* be solved
> for a particular release, and the dependencies thing for looser planning?
>
> What do you and others think?
Though I prefer exactly the other way around (because of the words
"blocking" and "target") I'm also ok with the current way or your
suggestion of handling it.
Nobody else with an opinion?
Joerg
Re: bugzilla usage
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le Vendredi, 13 fév 2004, à 00:22 Europe/Zurich, Joerg Heinicke a écrit
:
> On 12.02.2004 07:38, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>>> ...The dependency tree as we use it at the moment is not meant
>>> blocking, but that's an obvious wrong usage of it and bugzilla as it
>>> reads "bug 123 blocks 456". We really should use this only for
>>> blocking issues...
>> I disagree, these dependency lists are very useful to quickly get a
>> picture of where we stand.
>
> Hmm, a list can be created on the query page depending on the target
> milestone. The only thing that is lost is the tree, but I don't know
> if this is really needed...
IMO the tree is a very useful display when dependencies are used
extensively. But you're right that queries on target milestones would
work as well.
>> ...Problem is, in a dependency page like
>> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=25321
>> you don't see what's a blocker, what's nice to have and so on.
>
> That works when querying the patch depending on the target milestone
> as you get a normal bug list.
Agreed. Too bad there's no easy way (AFAIK) to show additional fields
in the tree display.
>> An easy way to fix this would be to add [BLOCKER] to the title as we
>> already do for patches.
>
> I don't like these things that must be done by hand without any
> restrictions.
These are obviously hacks but we're using [PATCH] already so it
wouldn't be a bigger sin ;-)
>
>>> Bugzilla provides another function to add "might be good to have it
>>> in the release": target milestones. We should just add milestones
>>> for every release and set value for the "might be good ..."-bugs.
>> You're right but I prefer the dependency tree because of the crossed
>> / non-crossed bug display.
>
> Crossed/non-crossed means FIXED/OPEN?
Yes
>
>> And target milestones need to be changed manually a lot when bugs
>> don't make it to the expected release.
>
> On the other hand the current solution is to arbitrary IMO. There is
> absolutely no commitment to this setting "next release".
You're right, and I think it fits our way of working (as a group) where
most issues are processed in "best effort" mode and only some are
really blocking a release.
>
>>> WDYT? Where are the bugzilla admins?
>> Some of us have additional rights in bugzilla to be able to define
>> products and components, see
>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=107029869507213&w=2
>> But it doesn't mean we're the rulers of bugzilla, it's as much a
>> community tool as everything else.
>
> Of course. It was not a "do it", but more a "how does it work". I
> never used it, but see that the Mozilla community is using it heavily.
Ok, I see your point.
Maybe we could use target milestones for issues that *must* be solved
for a particular release, and the dependencies thing for looser
planning?
What do you and others think?
-Bertrand