At 03:51 PM 3/17/2002, you wrote: >On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 03:53:00PM -0500, Joshua Slive wrote: > > +1 for separate projects based on the advice of the bugzilla-experienced > > people. > >What should we call it then? Apache httpd 2.0? httpd 2.0?
Apache httpd-1.3 Apache httpd-2.0 are unambigously similar to their cvs repository names. And those expecting to find "Apache" won't be disappointed. If you were going to pick that style, that's what I'd pick, and as I suggested, I'm simply -0 on this approach over an all-in-one model. Looks like you have a solution that pleases everyone. I can't argue with the fact that httpd-1.3 and httpd-2.0 have different lists of components, which is a strong factor. > > Well, I think we need every module in there, and a few other things like > > "build", "configuration", "website", "apr", etc. > >Considering how easy it is to add components, I don't think this >should be a big deal. IMHO, one of the problems with GNATS is that >very few people have access to change the components. Hopefully, >if we have enough admins flying around, we can keep this under control. Sign me up, as often as not, I'm the one nagging RoUS for new ones. >Notice that I also created an APR project. We'd need to identify >how we want to address APR bugs - should they be reported on that >project or should they be reported under httpd for the apr >component? Both. Create apr, apr-util and apr-iconv components of the APR project, create the apr and apr-util components under the Apache httpd-2.0 and Tomcat 4 projects [both of which rely on that component. When the day comes you are looking for apr-util bugs to close, query across all projects for the apr-util component. You will hit the bugs that all ASF projects are encountering with apr-util, including library users [developers] filing bugs under APR -> apr-util. > > +1. Will changing the default "owner" for all the components to this > > mailing list accomplish that? > >I think it might - I'm not a bugzilla expert by any stretch of the >imagination. I'd prefer that we created a new list (say bugs@httpd) >rather than re-using [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- justin This is, for reasons Marc pointed out, the wrong solution. Let's create a bugs@httpd list, and set up bugzilla (whatever it takes to accomplish this) to cc all Apache httpd bugs to that list. This doesn't prevent us from also using module owners, so if someone commits to handling a given class of bugs, they will be notified about those bugs. Consider Stipe who is extremely efficient with cygwin reports, if he was able to subscribe to that single class of bugs, that would help keep his bandwidth under control. I have to believe that more platform folks would sign on to bugs traffic if they could filter what os or components they care about. I think my 2c are spent, go at it, and I sure hope this our last trip across the river :-) In fairness, I believe the original attempt was undermined more by the old security holes that any technical incapacity to leverage bugzilla. Bill
