Re: RFC: infrastructure product in bugzilla
tor 2009-08-20 klockan 09:00 +1000 skrev Robert Collins: > I think we should have an infrastructure product in bugzilla, for > tracking list/server/buildfarm etc issues. My vote is for an "other" product. Regards Henrik
Re: RFC: infrastructure product in bugzilla
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 11:33 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:00:15 +1000, Robert Collins > wrote: > > I think we should have an infrastructure product in bugzilla, for > > tracking list/server/buildfarm etc issues. > > > > What sort of extra issues exactly are you thinking need to be bug-tracked? > > We already have websites as a separate 'product' for tracking content > errors. Oh hmm, perhaps just renaming websites -> infrastructure. We have a bunch of services: - smtp - lists - backups? - user accounts on squid-cache.org machines (eu, us, test vms, others?) - VCS - code review And a wide range of webbish services - the CDN - bugzilla (currently xlmrpc doesn't work) - the main site content - patch set generation - wiki -Rob signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFC: infrastructure product in bugzilla
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:00:15 +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > I think we should have an infrastructure product in bugzilla, for > tracking list/server/buildfarm etc issues. > What sort of extra issues exactly are you thinking need to be bug-tracked? We already have websites as a separate 'product' for tracking content errors. IMO, actual build failures can go in as regular FTBS (fail to build). Against the 'test-suite' or 'other' sub-sections of the Squid product. We would need to be careful of this so as not to add duplicates many times over. Amos
RFC: infrastructure product in bugzilla
I think we should have an infrastructure product in bugzilla, for tracking list/server/buildfarm etc issues. -Rob -- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
