Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Elijah Newren
Hi Max, On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Max Kanat-Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hey folks. I'm Max, from the Bugzilla Project. I also have a > company called Everything Solved, and we'd be the ones doing the > upgrade work if it happens. This is great news. :-) >All the

Re: DVCS

2008-12-04 Thread Guilherme de S. Pastore
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:25:58PM -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > Good timing. I'm working on it. Have a draft of the survey itself. I'm > installing a PHP-based survey software now. Then will pass the survey by > board, r-t, and sysadmin team, then go about asking people to fill in. Have > n

Re: new module proposal: notification-daemon+libnotify

2008-12-04 Thread Christian Hammond
No progress yet. Been too busy with work-related things and the holidays. Christian -- Christian Hammond - [EMAIL PROTECTED] VMware, Inc. On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Frederic Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Christian! > > > The tentative plan for notification-daemon and libnotify i

Re: DVCS

2008-12-04 Thread Patryk Zawadzki
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good timing. I'm working on it. Have a draft of the survey itself. I'm > installing a PHP-based survey software now. Then will pass the survey by > board, r-t, and sysadmin team, then go about asking people to fill in

Re: DVCS

2008-12-04 Thread Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > >> So you already on it or you are waiting for someone to get you th >> list of svn accounts? If latter is the case, It's pretty easily doable >> using git but unfortunately the dates in t

Re: DVCS

2008-12-04 Thread Behdad Esfahbod
Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > So you already on it or you are waiting for someone to get you th > list of svn accounts? If latter is the case, It's pretty easily doable > using git but unfortunately the dates in the git repos created through > git-svn aren't correct (or it seems to be the case)

Re: DVCS

2008-12-04 Thread Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
Hi! On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le lundi 17 novembre 2008, à 17:56 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : >> Owen Taylor wrote: >> > Question for gnome-infrastructure: How do we move forward on it? Do we >> > have an easier alternative at hand then just wri

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Max Kanat-Alexander
Hey folks. I'm Max, from the Bugzilla Project. I also have a company called Everything Solved, and we'd be the ones doing the upgrade work if it happens. The fact of who *I* am (Everything Solved) is not confidential at the moment. Only the funder's identity is confidential until w

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Cosimo Cecchi
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 14:21 -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > You don't need full symbols for crash information to be useful. It > certainly helps, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the > good there. Right, but I don't think there's an intermediate solution between resolving the crash tra

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Luis Villa
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Cosimo Cecchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > - simple-dup-finder >> >> Suggest we move crashes out of Bugzilla and into a separate database >> (like Socorro). Bugzilla should only be for hand-written input from >> technical people. > > Technically, bug-buddy is alr

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Cosimo Cecchi
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 12:56 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Cosimo Cecchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - patch review status > > Maybe time to investigate Review Board or the like? I haven't tried that kind of programs, but I think that any solution for reviewi

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Cosimo Cecchi
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 17:44 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > I am not sure what the timeframe is for every feature btw. The intention > is to order them by need, and deliver in multiple stages. So some > features might be missing for 6 months, some only for a month. Further, > some might be available

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Matthias Clasen
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Olav Vitters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is above acceptable? > Patch review status and patch emblems and their interaction with product pages are essential for my ability to manage GLib and GTK+. Getting those back as soon as possible would be important. And w

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Germán Póo-Caamaño
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 18:19 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote: > > but please focus on what you use: Is the reduced functionality trade-off > > acceptable if in the end we get a newer Bugzilla and the feature back? > > Note that likely some things will work in different ways etc. > > As long as stock ans

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Olav Vitters
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:42:36PM +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > Le jeudi 04 décembre 2008, à 17:00 +0100, Olav Vitters a écrit : > > Is above acceptable? > > The current situation is a dead-end, so I'm all for moving, even if we > lose some stuff. Yeah, but I need to know: * what priority should

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Vincent Untz
Le jeudi 04 décembre 2008, à 12:56 -0500, Colin Walters a écrit : > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Cosimo Cecchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - simple-dup-finder > > Suggest we move crashes out of Bugzilla and into a separate database > (like Socorro). Bugzilla should only be for hand-written

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Colin Walters
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Cosimo Cecchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - patch review status Maybe time to investigate Review Board or the like? > - simple-dup-finder Suggest we move crashes out of Bugzilla and into a separate database (like Socorro). Bugzilla should only be for hand-writ

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Olav Vitters
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:14:04PM +0100, Frederic Peters wrote: > Olav Vitters cited: > > > * Layout modifications for attachment table and the login box > > * Patch and keyword emblems > > * show_bug.cgi UI re-ordering & float-right box > > * Asking people if they've provided the NEEDINFO in

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Vincent Untz
Le jeudi 04 décembre 2008, à 17:00 +0100, Olav Vitters a écrit : > Is above acceptable? The current situation is a dead-end, so I'm all for moving, even if we lose some stuff. We'll eventually reimplement stuff that is important to us, and hopefully, we'll be able to do it in a more upstream-frie

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Andre Klapper
> but please focus on what you use: Is the reduced functionality trade-off > acceptable if in the end we get a newer Bugzilla and the feature back? > Note that likely some things will work in different ways etc. As long as stock answers and simple-dup-finder functionality get a high priority so th

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Frederic Peters
Olav Vitters cited: > * Layout modifications for attachment table and the login box > * Patch and keyword emblems > * show_bug.cgi UI re-ordering & float-right box > * Asking people if they've provided the NEEDINFO info. Are the features I find important in my usage of our Bugzilla. Do you k

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Behdad Esfahbod
Olav Vitters wrote: > * Boogle enhancements to QuickSearch (or maybe just implement > the most important ones first and theno implement the rest later?) >--> this is the GNOME specific 'simple search' Sounds crazy, but, has anyone every considered using a dedicated search engine instead of My

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Luis Villa
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Olav Vitters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 11:31:28AM -0500, Luis Villa wrote: >> One question I'd have: are there any steps that can be/will be taken >> to minimize the pain during the inevitable next upgrade? Commitment to >> getting changes

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Olav Vitters
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 11:17:14AM -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Olav Vitters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The GNOME Bugzilla is still using 2.20. Current stable upstream is at > > 3.2. The stable version has several benefits, but overall: > > * no crappy ta

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Olav Vitters
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 11:31:28AM -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > One question I'd have: are there any steps that can be/will be taken > to minimize the pain during the inevitable next upgrade? Commitment to > getting changes upstream, use of DVCS, etc.? Getting back to trunk Upstream: I'll check agai

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Olav Vitters
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 11:17:01AM -0500, Martin Meyer wrote: > Since the year-end stats won't be immediately available, can we wait > until just after the new year to do any migrations? Let's let someone > run that report and send out an email with the contents first. That > way we won't care if t

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Olav Vitters
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:19:28PM +0100, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: > Hi Olav, > > On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 17:00 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > > > For that the proposal is that the following is not part of the initial > > upgraded bgo: > > * The points system > > * index.cgi UI mods > > * Making a new

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Luis Villa
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Olav Vitters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The GNOME Bugzilla is still using 2.20. Current stable upstream is at > 3.2. The stable version has several benefits, but overall: > * no crappy table locking, while still allowing full text indexing > (table locking caus

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Cosimo Cecchi
Hi Olav, On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 17:00 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > For that the proposal is that the following is not part of the initial > upgraded bgo: > * The points system > * index.cgi UI mods > * Making a new favicon > * The infomessages on show_bug.cgi > * Layout modifications for atta

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Tristan Van Berkom
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Olav Vitters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The GNOME Bugzilla is still using 2.20. Current stable upstream is at > 3.2. The stable version has several benefits, but overall: > * no crappy table locking, while still allowing full text indexing > (table locking caus

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Martin Meyer
Since the year-end stats won't be immediately available, can we wait until just after the new year to do any migrations? Let's let someone run that report and send out an email with the contents first. That way we won't care if that feature is missing for another 12 months. - Martin On Thu, Dec 4

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Olav Vitters
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:00:30PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > There is a proposal to upgrade the GNOME Bugzilla by: > * having an external party do it (not me) > * deliver the functionality in multiple stages (hard requirement) >--> Means that not all the current functionality will be avail

Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

2008-12-04 Thread Olav Vitters
The GNOME Bugzilla is still using 2.20. Current stable upstream is at 3.2. The stable version has several benefits, but overall: * no crappy table locking, while still allowing full text indexing (table locking causes many performance problems) * Upstream supported XMLRPC (not perfect, but var

Re: Update Python version to >= 2.5

2008-12-04 Thread Frederic Peters
Olav Vitters wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 01:32:30PM +0100, Frederic Peters wrote: > > There were no objections, so let's celebrate Python 3.0 release with > > updating the minimum Python version to be 2.5. > > Still will break the buildbot on RHEL5 (never found bootstrap Python to > work wit

Re: Update Python version to >= 2.5

2008-12-04 Thread Colin Walters
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Olav Vitters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 01:32:30PM +0100, Frederic Peters wrote: >> There were no objections, so let's celebrate Python 3.0 release with >> updating the minimum Python version to be 2.5. > > Still will break the buildbot on

Re: Update Python version to >= 2.5

2008-12-04 Thread Olav Vitters
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 01:32:30PM +0100, Frederic Peters wrote: > There were no objections, so let's celebrate Python 3.0 release with > updating the minimum Python version to be 2.5. Still will break the buildbot on RHEL5 (never found bootstrap Python to work with x86_64). -- Regards, Olav ___

Re: GNOME 2.25.2 released !

2008-12-04 Thread Matthias Clasen
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Xavier Bestel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm no native english speaker, but I don't think "under the hood" means > what the guy who wrote that think it means. > For me, "looking under the hood" means having a peak at how it works. In > GnomeGoals context it looks

Re: new module proposal: notification-daemon+libnotify

2008-12-04 Thread Frederic Peters
Hi Christian! > The tentative plan for notification-daemon and libnotify is to move them > into SVN and switch over to Bugzilla. I'm then hoping to get someone to act > as a co-maintainer for this. There will be a formal code review process for > these modules, using a Review Board installation I'

Re: Update Python version to >= 2.5

2008-12-04 Thread Frederic Peters
Luca Ferretti wrote: > Current version is 2.4.3[1] and I know a Python update was yet discussed > in past, but please also consider: > > * libproxy (suggested for 2.26) ask for python >= 2.5 > * gobject-introspection (needed by gnome-shell) ask for python >= > 2.5 > * ot

Re: GNOME 2.25.2 released !

2008-12-04 Thread Xavier Bestel
Sorry, that mail meant to be private ... On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 10:06 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 10:53 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > By now, development > > is well under way, and we've already made good progress on some of the > > goals that we've set

Re: GNOME 2.25.2 released !

2008-12-04 Thread Xavier Bestel
Hi Matthias, On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 10:53 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > By now, development > is well under way, and we've already made good progress on some of the > goals that we've set ourselves for 2.26 (http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals). I'm no native english speaker, but I don't think "und