Re: [Zope3-dev] Core topic in Collector
Jim Fulton wrote: Steve Alexander wrote: I'd be happy using launchpad too. The last link points to a discussion that didn't have any decision in the end. I wouldn't go as far as abandoning the old collector data. Then I think we should stick with the current collector unless someone comes forward to do the work of moving the data, or unless we decide we don't need to. ... As many of you know, I'm manager of the Launchpad project at Canonical. I hereby offer the services of a member of the Launchpad team at Canonical to write Collector code if necessary in order to get an export of bugs from the Collector in a format that can be imported into Launchpad, to import said bugs into a demonstration server of Launchpad so we can check that the data conversion is good enough, and to do an actual import into the Launchpad production database, and to do this during January 2007. In return, I want a commitment that we'll use Launchpad for bug tracking for 6 months. (The bug data will be available in a documented XML format if y'all decide that Launchpad isn't for you, and you want to move to something else after this time.) I also want to give the Launchpad developer a single point of contact in the Zope community who will make decisions about any questions around mapping the semantics of Collector issues into Launchpad bugs, or lead discussions on the mailing list about this if necessary. There are a few Launchpad developers in the Zope developer community, so I think there's a good communication channel there. Nonetheless, I would also like to offer the Zope Foundation Board phone and online access to the Canonical 24/7 support office for getting a quick response on any critical issues that are affecting use of Launchpad, while the Zope project is using Launchpad as its bug tracker. I'd appreciate a decision on this offer before Christmas, and preferably sooner, so I can schedule the time before I leave on vacation. Thanks for this very generous offer. We've discussed this on the Zope Foundation Board and we unanimously accept your offer. Thank you (and the rest of the Board) for a swift decision. I'll make scheduling arrangements. I assume that this pertains to Zope 3 only. I'd love to move the ZODB issues to Launchpad, but that would require converting at least some of the Zope collector as well. I think that once we've figured out the right way to move one Collector, we can straightforwardly apply that to any others, as needed. -- Steve Alexander ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Core topic in Collector
Jim Fulton wrote: Chris Withers wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: The Zope3 collector isn't actually *that* bad in this respect. IMO, it could do without the topic and version info fields. Topic I'd agree with, but I would have thought version info would be pretty useful? Sure, but it could go in the description along with all of the other information needed to reproduce the problem. I thought the idea of a seperate field was to make it a mandatory dropdown so that at least we know what version of Zope the reporter is using... cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Core topic in Collector
Hi, Chris Withers wrote: I thought the idea of a seperate field was to make it a mandatory dropdown so that at least we know what version of Zope the reporter is using... We can know it without the drop down. Using the drop down would allow us to query for it or to restrict the entries to known/valid values. Christian -- gocept gmbh co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Core topic in Collector
Steve Alexander wrote: I'd be happy using launchpad too. The last link points to a discussion that didn't have any decision in the end. I wouldn't go as far as abandoning the old collector data. Then I think we should stick with the current collector unless someone comes forward to do the work of moving the data, or unless we decide we don't need to. ... As many of you know, I'm manager of the Launchpad project at Canonical. I hereby offer the services of a member of the Launchpad team at Canonical to write Collector code if necessary in order to get an export of bugs from the Collector in a format that can be imported into Launchpad, to import said bugs into a demonstration server of Launchpad so we can check that the data conversion is good enough, and to do an actual import into the Launchpad production database, and to do this during January 2007. In return, I want a commitment that we'll use Launchpad for bug tracking for 6 months. (The bug data will be available in a documented XML format if y'all decide that Launchpad isn't for you, and you want to move to something else after this time.) I also want to give the Launchpad developer a single point of contact in the Zope community who will make decisions about any questions around mapping the semantics of Collector issues into Launchpad bugs, or lead discussions on the mailing list about this if necessary. There are a few Launchpad developers in the Zope developer community, so I think there's a good communication channel there. Nonetheless, I would also like to offer the Zope Foundation Board phone and online access to the Canonical 24/7 support office for getting a quick response on any critical issues that are affecting use of Launchpad, while the Zope project is using Launchpad as its bug tracker. I'd appreciate a decision on this offer before Christmas, and preferably sooner, so I can schedule the time before I leave on vacation. Thanks for this very generous offer. We've discussed this on the Zope Foundation Board and we unanimously accept your offer. I assume that this pertains to Zope 3 only. I'd love to move the ZODB issues to Launchpad, but that would require converting at least some of the Zope collector as well. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Core topic in Collector
Chris Withers wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: Chris Withers wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: The Zope3 collector isn't actually *that* bad in this respect. IMO, it could do without the topic and version info fields. Topic I'd agree with, but I would have thought version info would be pretty useful? Sure, but it could go in the description along with all of the other information needed to reproduce the problem. I thought the idea of a seperate field was to make it a mandatory dropdown so that at least we know what version of Zope the reporter is using... I have no idea. That's certainly not what exists. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Core topic in Collector
Jim Fulton wrote at 2006-12-14 07:21 -0500: ... Yawn. IMO, the collect, despite it's flaws, isn't bad enough to spend time on, especially given other priorities. OTOH, I'd be happy to just switch to using Launchpad, which would require basically no effort, especially if we don't bother transferring old collector data. It is not a good indication for striving for quality when problem data is taken out of sight... Of course, not transferring old collector data is less work, but so is not writing tests or documentation ;-) -- Dieter ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Core topic in Collector
Jim Fulton wrote: The Zope3 collector isn't actually *that* bad in this respect. IMO, it could do without the topic and version info fields. Topic I'd agree with, but I would have thought version info would be pretty useful? cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Core topic in Collector
Chris Withers wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: The Zope3 collector isn't actually *that* bad in this respect. IMO, it could do without the topic and version info fields. Topic I'd agree with, but I would have thought version info would be pretty useful? That's what I thought too. -- gocept gmbh co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Core topic in Collector
Chris Withers wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: The Zope3 collector isn't actually *that* bad in this respect. IMO, it could do without the topic and version info fields. Topic I'd agree with, but I would have thought version info would be pretty useful? Sure, but it could go in the description along with all of the other information needed to reproduce the problem. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Core topic in Collector
Jim Fulton wrote: Chris Withers wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: The Zope3 collector isn't actually *that* bad in this respect. IMO, it could do without the topic and version info fields. Topic I'd agree with, but I would have thought version info would be pretty useful? Sure, but it could go in the description along with all of the other information needed to reproduce the problem. Right. I find it helpful to know which version the reporter talks about and would love if we'd keep inviting them to write in the version. Right now we do that with a separate field. (In other collectors this also makes it easier to query/manage the bugs.) -- gocept gmbh co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Core topic in Collector
Christian Theune wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: Chris Withers wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: The Zope3 collector isn't actually *that* bad in this respect. IMO, it could do without the topic and version info fields. Topic I'd agree with, but I would have thought version info would be pretty useful? Sure, but it could go in the description along with all of the other information needed to reproduce the problem. Right. I find it helpful to know which version the reporter talks about and would love if we'd keep inviting them to write in the version. There are much more interesting things to ask them for, like detailed instructions on how to reproduce a problem. Right now we do that with a separate field. (In other collectors this also makes it easier to query/manage the bugs.) Certainly the field we have now is so free form that it would never be useful for any sort of analysis. When people design forms, they tend to include all sorts of fields to support queries and analyses that somehow never get done. I'm quite sure that no one has ever used our version field for any sort of analysis or query, because it wouldn't work. If one were serious about doing so, they would maintain a list of versions and make this a select list. Note that I don't really care much about this specific case. I'm mostly grumbling about the very common tendency to over engineer input forms. I am confident that every field that is added to a form decreases the number of people who will be willing to fill out the form. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Core topic in Collector
Hi, Jim Fulton wrote: Christian Theune wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: ... Is it what needs to be fixed before a release? I think core is largely is a meaningless label in a system, the collector where we collect too much information already. Hmm. Would that mean we should provide better different labels in the collector? IMO, we should collect less data. A common design mistake is to make systems over complicated, including forms that collect too much data. The Zope3 collector isn't actually *that* bad in this respect. IMO, it could do without the topic and version info fields. Ah. By less data you didn't mean less issues/bugs but less qualified data fields. Hmm. At least I agree if that means less *required* fields. And the current collector isn't very bad in that, I agree too. The topic could probably go away, and maybe we could also remove some of the options from the classification. (I bet that issue, feature, bug, bug+solution would be enough, maybe feature+solution but I don't like the +solution very much.) Didn't we start some discussion a while ago about moving away from them? Does someone have this project on his radar still? Yawn. IMO, the collect, despite it's flaws, isn't bad enough to spend time on, especially given other priorities. OTOH, I'd be happy to just switch to using Launchpad, which would require basically no effort, especially if we don't bother transferring old collector data. I'm sorry to bore you with that, but I didn't notice that we had a definite outcome of the last discussion. This also goes into what Martijn said the last time: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.zope3/18957/focus=18957 I'd be happy using launchpad too. The last link points to a discussion that didn't have any decision in the end. I wouldn't go as far as abandoning the old collector data. They have an XMLRPC API available for filing bugs, maybe they have a simple import mechanism to get our existing data over. (Ok, so these last sentences might spur two discussions: again the collector issue which we didn't resolve the last time. The second issue: a central place for decisions to look up.) Anyway, wfmc isn't included in and therefore doesn't affect releases. K, that's enough for me to ignore the one bug then. ;) You mind if I put off the meaningless 'core' label for now so I can manage the bugs a bit better? I don't know what you mean by put off. I'd be happy to change the topic options. Or, perhaps change it to have one topic: Ignore this field. I meant to say that I wanted to remove the 'core' label from that specific bug to make it stay out of my query for the things we need to tackle for a 3.3.1. PS: I'll start using the importance '3.3 release' as a 'whatever next release in the 3.3 branch is to happen'-marker. Christian -- gocept gmbh co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Core topic in Collector
Hi, Jim Fulton wrote: There are much more interesting things to ask them for, like detailed instructions on how to reproduce a problem. Fullack. Right now we do that with a separate field. (In other collectors this also makes it easier to query/manage the bugs.) Certainly the field we have now is so free form that it would never be useful for any sort of analysis. Jup. However it still makes most people tell us which version they are talking about. When people design forms, they tend to include all sorts of fields to support queries and analyses that somehow never get done. I'm quite sure that no one has ever used our version field for any sort of analysis or query, because it wouldn't work. If one were serious about doing so, they would maintain a list of versions and make this a select list. Note that I don't really care much about this specific case. I'm mostly grumbling about the very common tendency to over engineer input forms. I am confident that every field that is added to a form decreases the number of people who will be willing to fill out the form. Yup. I've been using bugzilla for a long time and when I report bugs to the gentoo project, they make it very easy to fill in only a few fields. However, their bug management makes sure that they update those fields as they need them for individual bugs and for management purposes. But, we do not have a high traffic collector by any means, so if we save us some work and just keep it clean and simple we can spend more time on fixing the bugs and not on the management task. See my other mail for some small improvements that I'd like for the collector. Christian -- gocept gmbh co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Core topic in Collector
On Dec 15, 2006, at 7:37 AM, Christian Theune wrote: Hi, Jim Fulton wrote: Christian Theune wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: ... Is it what needs to be fixed before a release? I think core is largely is a meaningless label in a system, the collector where we collect too much information already. Hmm. Would that mean we should provide better different labels in the collector? IMO, we should collect less data. A common design mistake is to make systems over complicated, including forms that collect too much data. The Zope3 collector isn't actually *that* bad in this respect. IMO, it could do without the topic and version info fields. Ah. By less data you didn't mean less issues/bugs but less qualified data fields. Hmm. At least I agree if that means less *required* fields. And the current collector isn't very bad in that, I agree too. The topic could probably go away, and maybe we could also remove some of the options from the classification. (I bet that issue, feature, bug, bug+solution would be enough, maybe feature+solution but I don't like the +solution very much.) Didn't we start some discussion a while ago about moving away from them? Does someone have this project on his radar still? Yawn. IMO, the collect, despite it's flaws, isn't bad enough to spend time on, especially given other priorities. OTOH, I'd be happy to just switch to using Launchpad, which would require basically no effort, especially if we don't bother transferring old collector data. I'm sorry to bore you with that, but I didn't notice that we had a definite outcome of the last discussion. Of course not. That's what makes such discussions so tiresome. People have lots of ideas and complaints about easy solutions, like sticking with the current collector or moving to launchpad, but are unwilling to actually step forward and make commitments to implement other options. This also goes into what Martijn said the last time: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.zope3/18957/focus=18957 That link isn't very helpful. It points to a message in which Martijn says nothing and a thread in which he says many things. I'd be happy using launchpad too. The last link points to a discussion that didn't have any decision in the end. I wouldn't go as far as abandoning the old collector data. Then I think we should stick with the current collector unless someone comes forward to do the work of moving the data, or unless we decide we don't need to. ... Anyway, wfmc isn't included in and therefore doesn't affect releases. K, that's enough for me to ignore the one bug then. ;) You mind if I put off the meaningless 'core' label for now so I can manage the bugs a bit better? I don't know what you mean by put off. I'd be happy to change the topic options. Or, perhaps change it to have one topic: Ignore this field. I meant to say that I wanted to remove the 'core' label from that specific bug to make it stay out of my query for the things we need to tackle for a 3.3.1. PS: I'll start using the importance '3.3 release' as a 'whatever next release in the 3.3 branch is to happen'-marker. I think that is a great idea. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Core topic in Collector
Hi, Jim Fulton wrote: I'm sorry to bore you with that, but I didn't notice that we had a definite outcome of the last discussion. Of course not. That's what makes such discussions so tiresome. People have lots of ideas and complaints about easy solutions, like sticking with the current collector or moving to launchpad, but are unwilling to actually step forward and make commitments to implement other options. Right. I currently consider this to be one of the challenges we face regarding managing the project. This also goes into what Martijn said the last time: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.zope3/18957/focus=18957 That link isn't very helpful. It points to a message in which Martijn says nothing and a thread in which he says many things. Sorry, gmane.org fooled me. I meant to use this link: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.zope3/18957/focus=18968 (Hopefully this works now) I'd be happy using launchpad too. The last link points to a discussion that didn't have any decision in the end. I wouldn't go as far as abandoning the old collector data. Then I think we should stick with the current collector unless someone comes forward to do the work of moving the data, or unless we decide we don't need to. ... Fine with that. Can someone else please also speak up and agree that this discussion had the outcome of sticking with the collector or provide new insights? At least the mailing list archive can be used as a reference for this decision then. We should avoid to raise the topic again in the near future then, and we should gather some of the insights on how to use/change the collector in the wiki or our development guides IMHO. Christian -- gocept gmbh co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
