Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday?
On Sunday 07 March 2010 04:30:55 Sebastian Pipping wrote: What I wonder now is: - Will it work with our very instance of Bugzilla? The security team uses (or at least has used in the past) flags on Gentoo Bugzilla. - Can certain flag states be required when searching? It looks like you need to use the Advanced Searching Using Boolean Charts section on the search page - you can select Flag, is equal to, and type the flag name/state, for example Assigned_To? for one of the above-mentioned security flags. Note that the normal search fields still apply, so you need to deselect all the options in the Status list before that particular example will produce any results. - Can we get their current value out using ctype=rdf output I don't think you can with the RDF, but the XML button on the search results page includes the flags (and a whole lot of other information), so if you're going to rewrite the bugday software anyway you could consider using that instead, if it would give sufficient benefit. It seems that if you're requesting it programmatically you'd have to do the search, get the bug IDs and explicitly pass them to the XML generator, though, which makes things a little more awkward.
[gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday?
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 19:09:28 + David Leverton levert...@googlemail.com wrote: On Saturday 06 March 2010 15:26:10 Ioannis Aslanidis wrote: Well, I personally would prefer to have two keywords at least, one for candidates and another for confirmed bugs. This sounds like the sort of thing Bugzilla's flags mechanism is for. http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.22/html/flags-overview.html We've also talked about using flags for arch testing: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213514 -- fonts,by design, by neglect gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday?
On Tuesday 02 March 2010, Sebastian Pipping wrote: On 03/02/10 20:28, Nathan Zachary wrote: This looks like overkill to me. One keyword should be enough, and for supplementary information Status Whiteboard could be used. I agree. Simply having the BUGDAY keyword should be sufficient, and more information can be provided elsewhere in the report. If more than one keyword is commonly considered overkill I would at least request the whiteboard for it: somewhere in the report involves more than zero searching for it. Some people use the whiteboard for their own marking of bugs (e.g. security, and myself). If you add more information in there, you might be breaking other people's marking / sorting algorithms. I'd say one keyword BUGDAY is enough. Any bug editor can set and remove it and the bug history will show who set and removed it when. Sorting any syntax is taken care of by Bugzilla that way. It seems to me problem you seem to try to solve (review of bugs) can also be tackled with tools displaying new bugs that have the keyword set and just removing the keyword. If bugs are repeatedly spammed with BUGDAY comments, talk to the spammers or leave a comment. Robert signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday?
Well, I personally would prefer to have two keywords at least, one for candidates and another for confirmed bugs. Otherwise it will be a real trouble for us to sort things out. If adding more than one keywords breaks anything, then I can tell you now it is already broken. The only thing that could make me thing that one keyword is enough, is that an actual comment is added every time a keyword is being added or removed off a bug, to be able to keep track of these changes. On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Robert Buchholz r...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tuesday 02 March 2010, Sebastian Pipping wrote: On 03/02/10 20:28, Nathan Zachary wrote: This looks like overkill to me. One keyword should be enough, and for supplementary information Status Whiteboard could be used. I agree. Simply having the BUGDAY keyword should be sufficient, and more information can be provided elsewhere in the report. If more than one keyword is commonly considered overkill I would at least request the whiteboard for it: somewhere in the report involves more than zero searching for it. Some people use the whiteboard for their own marking of bugs (e.g. security, and myself). If you add more information in there, you might be breaking other people's marking / sorting algorithms. I'd say one keyword BUGDAY is enough. Any bug editor can set and remove it and the bug history will show who set and removed it when. Sorting any syntax is taken care of by Bugzilla that way. It seems to me problem you seem to try to solve (review of bugs) can also be tackled with tools displaying new bugs that have the keyword set and just removing the keyword. If bugs are repeatedly spammed with BUGDAY comments, talk to the spammers or leave a comment. Robert -- Ioannis Aslanidis http://www.deathwing00.org deathwing00[at]gentoo.org 0x47F370A0
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday?
On Saturday 06 March 2010 15:26:10 Ioannis Aslanidis wrote: Well, I personally would prefer to have two keywords at least, one for candidates and another for confirmed bugs. This sounds like the sort of thing Bugzilla's flags mechanism is for. http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.22/html/flags-overview.html
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday?
Now that's what I wanted. Thanks! On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:09 PM, David Leverton levert...@googlemail.com wrote: On Saturday 06 March 2010 15:26:10 Ioannis Aslanidis wrote: Well, I personally would prefer to have two keywords at least, one for candidates and another for confirmed bugs. This sounds like the sort of thing Bugzilla's flags mechanism is for. http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.22/html/flags-overview.html -- Ioannis Aslanidis http://www.deathwing00.org deathwing00[at]gentoo.org 0x47F370A0
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday?
On 03/06/10 20:09, David Leverton wrote: This sounds like the sort of thing Bugzilla's flags mechanism is for. http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.22/html/flags-overview.html Good idea! What I wonder now is: - Will it work with our very instance of Bugzilla? - Can certain flag states be required when searching? - Can we get their current value out using ctype=rdf output All yes makes it work. Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday?
On 03/02/10 02:09, Duncan wrote: ... And here I'm proposing three: BUGDAY(nomination) BUGDAY-ACCEPTED (or whatever is thought appropriate) NOBUGDAY (or BUGDAY-DECLINED, or BUGDAY-REFUSED, or...) The latter would be for nominated bugs that were declined as inappropriate for whatever reason, to help prevent them being nominated again. Presumably there'd be a comment added explaining why as well, but the keyword would be what shows up in someone's face if they're thinking about keywording it BUGDAY. I agree that it would be useful. Especially if we have bugs where an assignee wants to take care of the bug himself (including his own scheduling), we could run into bugday-keyword wars: 1) add keyword 2) remove keyword 3) overlook previous removal 4) goto 1 To make naming a bit more consistent, how about: - BUGDAY-CANDIDATE - BUGDAY-ACCEPTED - BUGDAY-REFUSED They're a bit long but I think it's worth to not have them crippled down to stuff like BDYES, BDNO and BDMAYBE. Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday?
On 03/02/10 02:32, Alec Warner wrote: BUGDAY (nomination) BUGDAY-ACCEPTED (or whatever is thought appropriate) NOBUGDAY(or BUGDAY-DECLINED, or BUGDAY-REFUSED, or...) I think the last one is over-engineering a bit; bugzilla keywords are not permanent How are they not permanent? Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010, Sebastian Pipping wrote: To make naming a bit more consistent, how about: - BUGDAY-CANDIDATE - BUGDAY-ACCEPTED - BUGDAY-REFUSED They're a bit long but I think it's worth to not have them crippled down to stuff like BDYES, BDNO and BDMAYBE. This looks like overkill to me. One keyword should be enough, and for supplementary information Status Whiteboard could be used. Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday?
On 02/03/10 13:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Tue, 02 Mar 2010, Sebastian Pipping wrote: To make naming a bit more consistent, how about: - BUGDAY-CANDIDATE - BUGDAY-ACCEPTED - BUGDAY-REFUSED They're a bit long but I think it's worth to not have them crippled down to stuff like BDYES, BDNO and BDMAYBE. This looks like overkill to me. One keyword should be enough, and for supplementary information Status Whiteboard could be used. Ulrich I agree. Simply having the BUGDAY keyword should be sufficient, and more information can be provided elsewhere in the report. --Zach
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday?
On 03/02/10 20:28, Nathan Zachary wrote: This looks like overkill to me. One keyword should be enough, and for supplementary information Status Whiteboard could be used. I agree. Simply having the BUGDAY keyword should be sufficient, and more information can be provided elsewhere in the report. If more than one keyword is commonly considered overkill I would at least request the whiteboard for it: somewhere in the report involves more than zero searching for it. Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday?
On 02/03/10 13:39, Sebastian Pipping wrote: On 03/02/10 20:28, Nathan Zachary wrote: This looks like overkill to me. One keyword should be enough, and for supplementary information Status Whiteboard could be used. I agree. Simply having the BUGDAY keyword should be sufficient, and more information can be provided elsewhere in the report. If more than one keyword is commonly considered overkill I would at least request the whiteboard for it: somewhere in the report involves more than zero searching for it. Sebastian Point taken, and I agree. --Zach
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday?
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:02:05 +0100 as excerpted: Quoting Ioannis Aslanidis aslani...@gmail.com: I would prefer to keep the keyword for Bugday Members to administer. I don't think that sending mails would work well. If you want extra control/QA for bugday team members I would propose two different keywords: one for bugday candidates and one for confirmed bugday bugs. Any dev could mark bugs as candidates easily and without delays while you could still reserve acknoledgement to you. ... And here I'm proposing three: BUGDAY (nomination) BUGDAY-ACCEPTED (or whatever is thought appropriate) NOBUGDAY (or BUGDAY-DECLINED, or BUGDAY-REFUSED, or...) I think the last one is over-engineering a bit; bugzilla keywords are not permanent so this will likely not help as much as one may think in practice. Old bugday keywords are visible in the activity trail. -A The latter would be for nominated bugs that were declined as inappropriate for whatever reason, to help prevent them being nominated again. Presumably there'd be a comment added explaining why as well, but the keyword would be what shows up in someone's face if they're thinking about keywording it BUGDAY. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
[gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday?
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 05:18:39 +0100 Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org wrote: I'm surprised that there is no keyword in Gentoo's bugzilla [1] to mark bugs for bugday. Is there a good reason why such a keyword does not exist? Would it be hard to set up? I would use it. I honestly didn't know we still did bugdays. :/ -- fonts,by design, by neglect gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
