From kevin.benton at amd.com Wed Dec 1 20:27:39 2004 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Kevin Benton) Date: 01 Dec 2004 13:27:39 -0700 Subject: Patch query - single email per bug Message-ID: <1101932858.28864.10.camel@ldcwebdev> Has anyone written a patch to make BZ send just one email per bug? I have one here as a local customization. It allows our mail servers to kill some of the duplicate emails that are going out (due to members of lists getting notified along with being included for other reasons). It's also reducing the load on the server because it only makes one call to sendmail instead of one per recipient. I'd like to include it in the public release. Before I send it up for review, I wanted to get feedback on the idea first. I plan to implement a flag to enable/disable this feature named OneEmailPerBug with a status of on/off. Kevin From preed at sigkill.com Wed Dec 1 20:32:02 2004 From: preed at sigkill.com (J. Paul Reed) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:32:02 -0800 Subject: Patch query - single email per bug In-Reply-To: <1101932858.28864.10.camel@ldcwebdev> References: <1101932858.28864.10.camel@ldcwebdev> Message-ID: <20041201203202.GA4899@sigkill.com> On 01 Dec 2004 at 13:27:39, Kevin Benton arranged the bits on my disk to say: > Before I send it up for review, I wanted to get feedback on the idea > first. I plan to implement a flag to enable/disable this feature named > OneEmailPerBug with a status of on/off. The reason, IIRC, that we didn't do this is because of the X-Bugzilla-Reason: header, and the fact that we wanted mail sent to people, not to a list of people. If you can resolve the fact that you'd have to send email to classes of people (owner, all CC list, etc.), then it should be an acceptable optimization. Later, Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------ J. Paul Reed -- 0xDF8708F8 || preed at sigkill.com || web.sigkill.com/preed Math, my dear boy, is nothing more than the lesbian sister of biology. -- Peter Griffin, Family Guy I use PGP; you should use PGP too... if only to piss off John Ashcroft From kevin.benton at amd.com Wed Dec 1 20:40:58 2004 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Kevin Benton) Date: 01 Dec 2004 13:40:58 -0700 Subject: Patch query - single email per bug In-Reply-To: <20041201203202.GA4899@sigkill.com> References: <1101932858.28864.10.camel@ldcwebdev> <20041201203202.GA4899@sigkill.com> Message-ID: <1101933657.28864.12.camel@ldcwebdev> That's exactly what we've been doing here and also the reason why I'd add the config flag to enable/disable it. Kevin On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 13:32, J. Paul Reed wrote: > On 01 Dec 2004 at 13:27:39, Kevin Benton arranged the bits on my disk to say: > > > Before I send it up for review, I wanted to get feedback on the idea > > first. I plan to implement a flag to enable/disable this feature named > > OneEmailPerBug with a status of on/off. > > The reason, IIRC, that we didn't do this is because of the > X-Bugzilla-Reason: header, and the fact that we wanted mail sent to people, > not to a list of people. > > If you can resolve the fact that you'd have to send email to classes of > people (owner, all CC list, etc.), then it should be an acceptable > optimization. > > Later, > Paul > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > J. Paul Reed -- 0xDF8708F8 || preed at sigkill.com || web.sigkill.com/preed > Math, my dear boy, is nothing more than the lesbian sister of biology. > -- Peter Griffin, Family Guy > > I use PGP; you should use PGP too... if only to piss off John Ashcroft > - > To view or change your list settings, click here: > > From gerv at mozilla.org Wed Dec 1 20:49:16 2004 From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:49:16 +0000 Subject: Patch query - single email per bug In-Reply-To: <20041201203202.GA4899@sigkill.com> References: <1101932858.28864.10.camel@ldcwebdev> <20041201203202.GA4899@sigkill.com> Message-ID: <41AE2E4C.3090300@mozilla.org> J. Paul Reed wrote: > If you can resolve the fact that you'd have to send email to classes of > people (owner, all CC list, etc.), then it should be an acceptable > optimization. What about insidergroup? If a comment is marked as insidergroup, and other changes are made at the same time, half the CC list need one email and half need the other. It might be possible to write a patch which works out all the possible parameters for an email, and amalgamates any which have exactly the same parameters - but there's a danger of it breaking every time email gets more customisable. Gerv From justdave at bugzilla.org Wed Dec 1 21:10:44 2004 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:10:44 -0500 Subject: Patch query - single email per bug In-Reply-To: <1101932858.28864.10.camel@ldcwebdev> References: <1101932858.28864.10.camel@ldcwebdev> Message-ID: <41AE3354.3050202@bugzilla.org> Kevin Benton wrote: > Has anyone written a patch to make BZ send just one email per bug? I > have one here as a local customization. It allows our mail servers to > kill some of the duplicate emails that are going out (due to members of > lists getting notified along with being included for other reasons). > It's also reducing the load on the server because it only makes one call > to sendmail instead of one per recipient. I'd like to include it in the > public release. > > Before I send it up for review, I wanted to get feedback on the idea > first. I plan to implement a flag to enable/disable this feature named > OneEmailPerBug with a status of on/off. Bugzilla used to do that, and it got killed on purpose when we allowed users to customize what events they get email for. It was left that way after some discussion because users will soon be able to customize how their email is delivered (i.e. text vs html, etc) and the number of parameters affecting what the email each person should get are just snowballing. -- Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ From kevin.benton at amd.com Wed Dec 1 21:36:22 2004 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Kevin Benton) Date: 01 Dec 2004 14:36:22 -0700 Subject: Patch query - single email per bug In-Reply-To: <41AE2E4C.3090300@mozilla.org> References: <1101932858.28864.10.camel@ldcwebdev> <20041201203202.GA4899@sigkill.com> <41AE2E4C.3090300@mozilla.org> Message-ID: <1101936981.28864.60.camel@ldcwebdev> Hi Gerv. The way the patch works here is off the @sentlist as built in NewProcessOnePerson. What was done was basically to take the call to sendmail out of this routine, and then add a call to SendMail() near the end of ProcessOneBug(). >From what I'm hearing you say, one bug can have a number of different email output types. My code doesn't currently account for that, however, I can make an adjustment to cover that type of situation. Here's how I would overcome that situation: During the build of email recipients, a list of recipients would be created with each unique email to go out. Uniqueness would be determined by getting an MD5sum of the outbound text excluding the recipient list. When the MD5's match, the email recipient would just get added to the existing recipient list. If the outgoing text were unique, a new entry in the hash would be created with the MD5 as the key. AcutalRecipientList{md5hash}={'recipients'=>array(/*recipient emails*/), 'body'=>$bodystr /* message body */, 'subject'=>$subject /* message subject */} Then, when SendMail() actually goes to sending the mail, it just steps through the hash. Of course, this could easily be done in a class. As I see it, the methodology I am thinking of would still remain the same. :) Thank you! More feedback? Kevin On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 13:49, Gervase Markham wrote: > J. Paul Reed wrote: > > If you can resolve the fact that you'd have to send email to classes of > > people (owner, all CC list, etc.), then it should be an acceptable > > optimization. > > What about insidergroup? If a comment is marked as insidergroup, and > other changes are made at the same time, half the CC list need one email > and half need the other. > > It might be possible to write a patch which works out all the possible > parameters for an email, and amalgamates any which have exactly the same > parameters - but there's a danger of it breaking every time email gets > more customisable. > > Gerv > - > To view or change your list settings, click here: > > From justdave at bugzilla.org Wed Dec 1 21:42:27 2004 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:42:27 -0500 Subject: Patch query - single email per bug In-Reply-To: <1101936981.28864.60.camel@ldcwebdev> References: <1101932858.28864.10.camel@ldcwebdev> <20041201203202.GA4899@sigkill.com> <41AE2E4C.3090300@mozilla.org> <1101936981.28864.60.camel@ldcwebdev> Message-ID: <41AE3AC3.8060803@bugzilla.org> Kevin Benton wrote: > When the MD5's match, the email recipient would just get added to the > existing recipient list. If the outgoing text were unique, a new entry > in the hash would be created with the MD5 as the key. This kind of thing might work. Another issue to be aware of is that a lot of mail servers have a limit to the allowed number of recipients on a single message (as an anti-spam measure). I know Sendmail (which most of the net seems to be using still) defaults to a limit of 50 recipients per message. Many ISPs limit it much smaller (like 15). -- Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ From kevin.benton at amd.com Wed Dec 1 21:54:08 2004 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Kevin Benton) Date: 01 Dec 2004 14:54:08 -0700 Subject: Patch query - single email per bug In-Reply-To: <41AE3AC3.8060803@bugzilla.org> References: <1101932858.28864.10.camel@ldcwebdev> <20041201203202.GA4899@sigkill.com> <41AE2E4C.3090300@mozilla.org> <1101936981.28864.60.camel@ldcwebdev> <41AE3AC3.8060803@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <1101938047.28864.63.camel@ldcwebdev> Good idea - adding a maximum_recipients_per_email parameter should take care of that, right? :) On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 14:42, David Miller wrote: > Kevin Benton wrote: > > > When the MD5's match, the email recipient would just get added to the > > existing recipient list. If the outgoing text were unique, a new entry > > in the hash would be created with the MD5 as the key. > > This kind of thing might work. Another issue to be aware of is that a > lot of mail servers have a limit to the allowed number of recipients on > a single message (as an anti-spam measure). I know Sendmail (which most > of the net seems to be using still) defaults to a limit of 50 recipients > per message. Many ISPs limit it much smaller (like 15). From jpyeron at pdinc.us Wed Dec 1 23:06:41 2004 From: jpyeron at pdinc.us (Jason Pyeron) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 18:06:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Patch query - single email per bug In-Reply-To: <1101938047.28864.63.camel@ldcwebdev> Message-ID: I think setting maximum_recipients_per_email=1 is safe. Sorry, I have been dealing with lunacy all day. Te post office says that releasing a list of mail boxes would harm national security. I don't think that "saving" on bandwidth is worth the risk of not receiving bug mail. But... Can we concatenate some of the messages that get delivered to the in box? I get many same bug messages in a row, just over a few seconds. On 1 Dec 2004, Kevin Benton wrote: > Good idea - adding a maximum_recipients_per_email parameter should take > care of that, right? :) > -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - - - Jason Pyeron PD Inc. http://www.pdinc.us - - Partner & Sr. Manager #1 2739 Saint Paul Street - - +1 (410) 808-6646 (c) Baltimore, Maryland 21218 - - - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, purge the message from your system and notify the sender immediately. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited. From lee at netzentry.com Thu Dec 2 07:28:57 2004 From: lee at netzentry.com (Lee Ivy) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:28:57 -0800 Subject: Clearing out old history on a bugzilla project References: <20041117191649.2D7FD60E5F@ldcmail.amd.com> <419BAC7F.3030809@bugzilla.org> <419C6128.4000805@altap.cz> <41AA118E.1040003@gmx.net> <1101741108.4572.50.camel@ldcwebdev> Message-ID: <002b01c4d840$9b7fb140$0300a8c0@IvyFamily> Hello, We are working with a bugzilla database that has been in place for about 3 years. Due to some changes in our company's product strategy, the data from 2001 until aooroximately summer 2004 is of minimal interest to us, and in some cases it gets in the way. Unfortunately both the old & recent data use the same project name in bugzilla. We have two questions: 1.. When I run the bug status history chart, the chart is dominated by the old un-interesting data and the recent 2004 data is squished far to the right. Can anyone point us to where we could find the historical data that feeds into these charts, and tell us how to safely delete the old counts so that our graphs are not skewed by them anymore? 2.. We are considering going one step farther and archiving all the old bugs themselves. Is there a relatively safe way to do this? Are there any caveats, pitfalls, reasons to think twice before plowing ahead, etc? (or is there a safer alternative such as moving all the old ones to a different project?) Thanks Lee Ivy QA Architect netZentry, Inc. 990 Commercial #100, Palo Alto CA 650-799-8620 lee at netzentry.com www.netzentry.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From luis.villa at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 17:21:36 2004 From: luis.villa at gmail.com (Luis Villa) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:21:36 -0500 Subject: arch mirror of bugzilla CVS? Message-ID: <2cb10c44041202092118c5ebc5@mail.gmail.com> Hey- Has anyone put up an arch[1] mirror of bugzilla CVS? I haven't played with arch on any serious scale yet, but given that it attempts to make cross-branch merges much easier[2], and cross-branch merges are the biggest problem for those of us (kde, gnome, etc.) doing big custom installations of bugzilla, it seems like a natural fit to make our lives easier. So... has anyone looked at it? :) I might play with it some next week, but I'm hoping against hope that someone may have already looked into it. Thanks- Luis [1] http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/ [2]http://wiki.gnuarch.org/moin.cgi/Merging_20with_20Arch From etzwane at schwag.org Thu Dec 2 21:28:09 2004 From: etzwane at schwag.org (Sean McAfee) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:28:09 -0500 Subject: Patch query - single email per bug In-Reply-To: <1101932858.28864.10.camel@ldcwebdev> Message-ID: <20041202212809.C2DC2BC60@mail.schwag.org> "Kevin Benton" wrote: >Has anyone written a patch to make BZ send just one email per bug? I >have one here as a local customization. It allows our mail servers to >kill some of the duplicate emails that are going out (due to members of >lists getting notified along with being included for other reasons). >It's also reducing the load on the server because it only makes one call >to sendmail instead of one per recipient. I'd like to include it in the >public release. > >Before I send it up for review, I wanted to get feedback on the idea >first. I plan to implement a flag to enable/disable this feature named >OneEmailPerBug with a status of on/off. I've also implemented this, on a per-product basis, by adding a column "condensemail" to the PRODUCTS table. Unfortunately, it required some rather intrusive edits to Bugzilla::BugMail. (For example, the sub &NewProcessOnePerson is now &NewProcessPeople.) By the way, in my digging around, I was shocked to find that bug mails are actually sent by the *Template Toolkit*, in its processing of the "bug mail sent" template. This strikes me as a breathtakingly bad design. I'm still using an older version of BZ, though; is it still done this way? Is there some reason for it I just don't see? --Sean From justdave at bugzilla.org Thu Dec 2 21:58:38 2004 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:58:38 -0500 Subject: arch mirror of bugzilla CVS? In-Reply-To: <2cb10c44041202092118c5ebc5@mail.gmail.com> References: <2cb10c44041202092118c5ebc5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <41AF900E.5010308@bugzilla.org> Luis Villa wrote: > Has anyone put up an arch[1] mirror of bugzilla CVS? I haven't played > with arch on any serious scale yet, but given that it attempts to make > cross-branch merges much easier[2], and cross-branch merges are the > biggest problem for those of us (kde, gnome, etc.) doing big custom > installations of bugzilla, it seems like a natural fit to make our > lives easier. > > So... has anyone looked at it? :) I might play with it some next week, > but I'm hoping against hope that someone may have already looked into > it. Unless there's been major changes to cscvs in the last couple months, it doesn't work real well with our repository. Mozilla did too many weird things with the cvs repo, and it breaks cscvs left and right. (I tried it once already myself). That said, there *were* folks working on improvements to cscvs dealing with weird situations (Robert Collins I believe) but I don't know if that ever made it back upstream. -- Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ From justdave at bugzilla.org Thu Dec 2 22:01:18 2004 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:01:18 -0500 Subject: Patch query - single email per bug In-Reply-To: <20041202212809.C2DC2BC60@mail.schwag.org> References: <20041202212809.C2DC2BC60@mail.schwag.org> Message-ID: <41AF90AE.5080008@bugzilla.org> Sean McAfee wrote: > By the way, in my digging around, I was shocked to find that bug mails are > actually sent by the *Template Toolkit*, in its processing of the "bug mail > sent" template. This strikes me as a breathtakingly bad design. I'm still > using an older version of BZ, though; is it still done this way? Is there > some reason for it I just don't see? Yeah, we didn't like it much when we did it (and yes, it's still done that way). I remember there being a good reason for it at the time (or at least one nobody could find a counter for), but I don't remember what that reason was. Something about limited capabilities on the part of Template Toolkit I think. -- Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ From justdave at bugzilla.org Thu Dec 2 22:27:44 2004 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:27:44 -0500 Subject: Clearing out old history on a bugzilla project In-Reply-To: <002b01c4d840$9b7fb140$0300a8c0@IvyFamily> References: <20041117191649.2D7FD60E5F@ldcmail.amd.com> <419BAC7F.3030809@bugzilla.org> <419C6128.4000805@altap.cz> <41AA118E.1040003@gmx.net> <1101741108.4572.50.camel@ldcwebdev> <002b01c4d840$9b7fb140$0300a8c0@IvyFamily> Message-ID: <41AF96E0.7020209@bugzilla.org> Lee Ivy wrote: > We have two questions: I was going to point out that these questions were a better fit for the mozilla-webtools list, but I see you already found your way there. Hopefully you'll get some good answers there. -- Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ From luis.villa at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 22:29:30 2004 From: luis.villa at gmail.com (Luis Villa) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:29:30 -0500 Subject: arch mirror of bugzilla CVS? In-Reply-To: <41AF900E.5010308@bugzilla.org> References: <2cb10c44041202092118c5ebc5@mail.gmail.com> <41AF900E.5010308@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <2cb10c4404120214295f9ce8a9@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:58:38 -0500, David Miller wrote: > Luis Villa wrote: > > > > > Has anyone put up an arch[1] mirror of bugzilla CVS? I haven't played > > with arch on any serious scale yet, but given that it attempts to make > > cross-branch merges much easier[2], and cross-branch merges are the > > biggest problem for those of us (kde, gnome, etc.) doing big custom > > installations of bugzilla, it seems like a natural fit to make our > > lives easier. > > > > So... has anyone looked at it? :) I might play with it some next week, > > but I'm hoping against hope that someone may have already looked into > > it. > > Unless there's been major changes to cscvs in the last couple months, it > doesn't work real well with our repository. Mozilla did too many weird > things with the cvs repo, and it breaks cscvs left and right. (I tried > it once already myself). I was afraid of this; all the comments: http://wiki.gnuarch.org/moin.cgi/cscvs under 'be ye warned' just seemed as if they were tailor made for bugzilla. > That said, there *were* folks working on improvements to cscvs dealing > with weird situations (Robert Collins I believe) but I don't know if > that ever made it back upstream. It doesn't appear that his tree is even available any longer, much less developed :/ I have only one month away from work, I don't think this is enough to learn enough cvs and arch to fix the problems :) Sad, it would be a good solution for gnome (and I think others). Luis From lee at netzentry.com Thu Dec 2 22:46:37 2004 From: lee at netzentry.com (Lee Ivy) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:46:37 -0800 Subject: Clearing out old history on a bugzilla project In-Reply-To: <41AF96E0.7020209@bugzilla.org> References: <20041117191649.2D7FD60E5F@ldcmail.amd.com> <419BAC7F.3030809@bugzilla.org> <419C6128.4000805@altap.cz> <41AA118E.1040003@gmx.net> <1101741108.4572.50.camel@ldcwebdev> <002b01c4d840$9b7fb140$0300a8c0@IvyFamily> <41AF96E0.7020209@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <41AF9B4D.9050908@netzentry.com> David, Shane Travis pointed out to me that my questions were better suited to mozilla-webtools, in fact he offered to answer them if and only if I re-posted them -- I did so and he posted a very informative answer. I am new to the bugzilla community, I really appreciate the time you, Shane, and others take to thoughtfully respond to all the queries you receive. One suggestion, if you posted a link to *mozilla-webtools* on the *http://www.bugzilla.org/developers/* page or other such places, it might help folks find this useful group and keep the developers group focused on its primary charter. Thanks, Lee David Miller wrote: > Lee Ivy wrote: > >> We have two questions: > > > I was going to point out that these questions were a better fit for > the mozilla-webtools list, but I see you already found your way there. > Hopefully you'll get some good answers there. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justdave at bugzilla.org Fri Dec 3 00:20:03 2004 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:20:03 -0500 Subject: Clearing out old history on a bugzilla project In-Reply-To: <41AF9B4D.9050908@netzentry.com> References: <20041117191649.2D7FD60E5F@ldcmail.amd.com> <419BAC7F.3030809@bugzilla.org> <419C6128.4000805@altap.cz> <41AA118E.1040003@gmx.net> <1101741108.4572.50.camel@ldcwebdev> <002b01c4d840$9b7fb140$0300a8c0@IvyFamily> <41AF96E0.7020209@bugzilla.org> <41AF9B4D.9050908@netzentry.com> Message-ID: <41AFB133.5040507@bugzilla.org> Lee Ivy wrote: > One suggestion, if you posted a link to *mozilla-webtools* on the > *http://www.bugzilla.org/developers/* page or other such places, it > might help folks find this useful group and keep the developers group > focused on its primary charter. The developers list is the only one on the developers page because it's the only one suited to developers. Mozilla-webtools is advertised on the support page :) But yes, a pointer to it probably wouldn't hurt. -- Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ From justdave at bugzilla.org Fri Dec 3 14:22:41 2004 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:22:41 -0500 Subject: arch mirror of bugzilla CVS? In-Reply-To: <2cb10c4404120214295f9ce8a9@mail.gmail.com> References: <2cb10c44041202092118c5ebc5@mail.gmail.com> <41AF900E.5010308@bugzilla.org> <2cb10c4404120214295f9ce8a9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <41B076B1.4090903@bugzilla.org> Luis Villa wrote: > I have only one month away from work, I don't think this is enough to > learn enough cvs and arch to fix the problems :) Sad, it would be a > good solution for gnome (and I think others). Yeah, I was thinking that, too. We're starting to get quite the collection of local hacks on mozilla.org that aren't suitable to go into Bugzilla proper, and a directory full of patch files is a little hard to maintain :) -- Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ From chicks at chicks.net Fri Dec 3 18:31:38 2004 From: chicks at chicks.net (Christopher Hicks) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:31:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: CGI interface to Bugzilla schema documentation In-Reply-To: References: <10quia833he0669@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: This started on the webtools mailing list, but I didn't want to whine too much in front of the users... On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Gervase Markham wrote: > There's no way I can review that - I have no idea whether it's right or not. Then let me review it. ;) > Auto-generating it seems to make more sense; then we can be certain it's > correct. Isn't that what Nick's tool does (well, based on his list of > deltas, which can be more easily verified)? Does it produce a decent looking chart? Doing something by hand here so that the docs for 2.18 are closer to complete seems acceptable. Waiting for the ideal thing when we're within weeks of releasing the 2.20 version and the docs for the previous stable version don't even include a database chart yet seems ridiculous. This is not a case where perfection seems to be necessary or appropriate. -- "Fans of Mozilla's free, open-source Firefox browser make the ardent Apple faithful look like a bunch of slackers." - Rebecca Lieb at clickz.com From travis at SEDSystems.ca Fri Dec 3 18:38:16 2004 From: travis at SEDSystems.ca (Shane H. W. Travis) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:38:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: CGI interface to Bugzilla schema documentation In-Reply-To: References: <10quia833he0669@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Christopher Hicks wrote: > This started on the webtools mailing list, but I didn't want to whine too > much in front of the users... > > On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Gervase Markham wrote: > > There's no way I can review that - I have no idea whether it's right or not. Sure there is. You can review it the same way I *wrote* it; by going through the 2.16.7 database and dumping the tables, checking that the types listed there match up with the types on my charts, confirming that the foreign keys on my chart match what is in the database, and double-checking for typos and whatnot. I'm sure you're *capable* of doing that, as I've seen you do much more difficult things. If I was capable of creating it, you're capable of reviewing it. What I can only assume you meant, then, was, "That would take too much time and effort, and I can't be bothered with it." If nobody wants to take the time to do a full-on, drill-down review of it, then at least it could be recognized that the diagram a whole lot more representative of the 2.16 schema than what currently *exists* in the documenation, and approve it for that reason alone. But no... just because someone's hungry, it's not enough to make them breakfast. We have to create an automatic breakfast-making machine that will fulfil all their breakfast needs and ensure that we never have to go back into the kitchen again. It'll be ready in a few months. (I hope.) You weren't needing to eat before that, were you? Shane Travis | A fanatic is someone who redoubles his effort travis at sedsystems.ca | when he has forgotten his aim. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- George Santayana From kiko at async.com.br Fri Dec 3 20:15:26 2004 From: kiko at async.com.br (Christian Robottom Reis) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 18:15:26 -0200 Subject: CGI interface to Bugzilla schema documentation In-Reply-To: References: <10quia833he0669@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: <20041203201526.GI5778@async.com.br> On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 12:38:16PM -0600, Shane H. W. Travis wrote: > If nobody wants to take the time to do a full-on, drill-down review of it, > then at least it could be recognized that the diagram a whole lot more > representative of the 2.16 schema than what currently *exists* in the > documenation, and approve it for that reason alone. For the record, I endorse this approach; I believe Shane deserves credit for his attempt, and if nobody's interested in reviewing it, then we shouldn't let it go to waste -- it's documentation, not code, and we know our documentation isn't going to be 100% tip-top anyway. Take care, -- Christian Robottom Reis | http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 3361 2331 From chicks at chicks.net Fri Dec 3 20:55:34 2004 From: chicks at chicks.net (Christopher Hicks) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:55:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: CGI interface to Bugzilla schema documentation In-Reply-To: References: <10quia833he0669@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Shane H. W. Travis wrote: > But no... just because someone's hungry, it's not enough to make them > breakfast. We have to create an automatic breakfast-making machine that > will fulfil all their breakfast needs and ensure that we never have to > go back into the kitchen again. It'll be ready in a few months. (I > hope.) You weren't needing to eat before that, were you? Oh yes. ROFL. Precisely! :) That's hilarious. -- "Fans of Mozilla's free, open-source Firefox browser make the ardent Apple faithful look like a bunch of slackers." - Rebecca Lieb at clickz.com From mkanat at kerio.com Fri Dec 3 21:18:21 2004 From: mkanat at kerio.com (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 13:18:21 -0800 Subject: CGI interface to Bugzilla schema documentation In-Reply-To: References: <10quia833he0669@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: <1102108701.26858.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 15:55 -0500, Christopher Hicks wrote: > On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Shane H. W. Travis wrote: > > But no... just because someone's hungry, it's not enough to make them > > breakfast. We have to create an automatic breakfast-making machine that > > will fulfil all their breakfast needs and ensure that we never have to > > go back into the kitchen again. It'll be ready in a few months. (I > > hope.) You weren't needing to eat before that, were you? > > Oh yes. ROFL. Precisely! :) That's hilarious. Seriously. Can we post that quote in the Open Source Hall of Fame, somewhere? -Max From kevin.benton at amd.com Fri Dec 3 21:21:49 2004 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Kevin Benton) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:21:49 -0700 Subject: Bugzilla used to track Bugzilla Message-ID: <20041203212149.5B2F660E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> I'm wondering - why isn't Bugzilla on bugzilla.mozilla.org up to 2.19.1? I would think it would help build user confidence if we're using our own latest/greatest to track our issues. Kevin Benton Perl/Bugzilla Developer Advanced Micro Devices -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justdave at bugzilla.org Fri Dec 3 21:38:14 2004 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 16:38:14 -0500 Subject: Bugzilla used to track Bugzilla In-Reply-To: <20041203212149.5B2F660E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> References: <20041203212149.5B2F660E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> Message-ID: <41B0DCC6.4030408@bugzilla.org> Kevin Benton wrote: > I?m wondering ? why isn?t Bugzilla on bugzilla.mozilla.org up to > 2.19.1? I would think it would help build user confidence if we?re > using our own latest/greatest to track our issues? Yup, sure would. Prior to about 3 weeks ago, there wasn't sufficient staff to keep up with the operations needs, and it got left behind. Since that point, they don't want the disruption too close to a release. The Thunderbird 1.0 release is scheduled for Tuesday Dec 7. The Bugzilla upgrade is now scheduled for Saturday Dec 11th. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=bmo-upgrade -- Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ From gerv at mozilla.org Fri Dec 3 22:09:35 2004 From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 22:09:35 +0000 Subject: CGI interface to Bugzilla schema documentation In-Reply-To: References: <10quia833he0669@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: <41B0E41F.80404@mozilla.org> Shane H. W. Travis wrote: > Sure there is. You can review it the same way I *wrote* it; by going through > the 2.16.7 database and dumping the tables, checking that the types listed > there match up with the types on my charts, confirming that the foreign > keys on my chart match what is in the database, and double-checking for > typos and whatnot. > > I'm sure you're *capable* of doing that, as I've seen you do much more > difficult things. If I was capable of creating it, you're capable of > reviewing it. What I can only assume you meant, then, was, "That would take > too much time and effort, and I can't be bothered with it." Yep, it's a fair cop. Except that rather than "I can't be bothered", it's more that "there are 212 emails in my inbox, all of which are from people asking me to do something, plus another 30 items on my todo list, none of which are Bugzilla-related". > If nobody wants to take the time to do a full-on, drill-down review of it, > then at least it could be recognized that the diagram a whole lot more > representative of the 2.16 schema than what currently *exists* in the > documenation, and approve it for that reason alone. Sounds good to me. Gerv From gerv at mozilla.org Sat Dec 4 20:27:45 2004 From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 20:27:45 +0000 Subject: arch mirror of bugzilla CVS? In-Reply-To: <41B076B1.4090903@bugzilla.org> References: <2cb10c44041202092118c5ebc5@mail.gmail.com> <41AF900E.5010308@bugzilla.org> <2cb10c4404120214295f9ce8a9@mail.gmail.com> <41B076B1.4090903@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <41B21DC1.3020103@mozilla.org> David Miller wrote: > Yeah, I was thinking that, too. We're starting to get quite the > collection of local hacks on mozilla.org that aren't suitable to go into > Bugzilla proper, and a directory full of patch files is a little hard to > maintain :) Would it be a good idea to have a b.m.o. branch, then? Gerv From gerv at mozilla.org Sat Dec 4 21:14:37 2004 From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 21:14:37 +0000 Subject: Slashdot article on Bugzilla on Windows Message-ID: <41B228BD.5050000@mozilla.org> http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/02/0310218 slipandfall asks: "I just started work at a 100% Windows shop (no chance of changing this) and would love to implement Bugzilla for issue tracking but statements like this - 'Making Bugzilla work on Windows is still a painful processes.' in the OS-Specific installation notes don't make it seem reasonable. Since there is no chance of using Linux/UNIX here, can I get people's experiences using Bugzilla on Windows or experience with a tool (open source or not) on Windows with similar notification, discussion and issue tracking features?" Leaving aside the stupidity of asking on Slashdot when he could have asked in the newsgroup, we need to remove that silly piece of text from the tip docs, as it's no longer true. However, it's also a useful opportunity to get people's feedback on Bugzilla and other tracking systems. I'll go through the comments and post a summary soon. Gerv From gerv at mozilla.org Sat Dec 4 21:25:40 2004 From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 21:25:40 +0000 Subject: Summary of comments on Slashdot article Message-ID: <41B22B54.5000606@mozilla.org> http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/02/0310218 Approximate distribution of people saying "I use...": Bugzilla: 7 Mantis: 5 JIRA: 4 FogBugz: 2 RT: 1 Scarab: 1 One guy said he moved from Bugzilla to Jira, but didn't say why specifically ("We have used bugzilla for a few years, and just made the transition to JIRA due to the ability to better track all parts of the development process"). There weren't many complaints about Bugzilla's function, and some nice things said about it, but we need to work on our installation process - either actually, or the perception of it. People still think Bugzilla is hard to install. Gerv From justdave at bugzilla.org Sat Dec 4 22:49:10 2004 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 17:49:10 -0500 Subject: arch mirror of bugzilla CVS? In-Reply-To: <41B21DC1.3020103@mozilla.org> References: <2cb10c44041202092118c5ebc5@mail.gmail.com> <41AF900E.5010308@bugzilla.org> <2cb10c4404120214295f9ce8a9@mail.gmail.com> <41B076B1.4090903@bugzilla.org> <41B21DC1.3020103@mozilla.org> Message-ID: <41B23EE6.30703@bugzilla.org> Gervase Markham wrote: > David Miller wrote: > >> Yeah, I was thinking that, too. We're starting to get quite the >> collection of local hacks on mozilla.org that aren't suitable to go >> into Bugzilla proper, and a directory full of patch files is a little >> hard to maintain :) > > Would it be a good idea to have a b.m.o. branch, then? The way branching works in CVS, it's actually easier to maintain a directory full of patch files than to maintain a branch, because you can keep each patch separate and easily remove a specific thing if you decide you no longer need that feature. That way also keeps them separate so you can pass it around to other folks if you decide that feature does belong upstream without fear of accidently including other stuff in it. -- Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ From justdave at bugzilla.org Sat Dec 4 22:53:34 2004 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 17:53:34 -0500 Subject: Summary of comments on Slashdot article In-Reply-To: <41B22B54.5000606@mozilla.org> References: <41B22B54.5000606@mozilla.org> Message-ID: <41B23FEE.9030101@bugzilla.org> Gervase Markham wrote: > There weren't many complaints about Bugzilla's function, and some nice > things said about it, but we need to work on our installation process - > either actually, or the perception of it. People still think Bugzilla is > hard to install. And part of that problem is our documentation, which still *says* it's hard to install, and people believe it. :) (hence the quote from the docs in the banner article on slashdot). That is actually already in the process of being fixed (and may already be, I haven't looked lately, but I know there's been major action on that bug, even in the few days prior to that article going up :) The docs guys have been going crazy the last few weeks, between Shane taking an active role in the docs and Jake resurfacing. :) We might actually have decent docs in the 2.20 tarball :) -- Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ From bruce.armstrong at teamsybase.com Sun Dec 5 04:28:22 2004 From: bruce.armstrong at teamsybase.com (Bruce Armstrong [TeamSybase]) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 20:28:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Slashdot article on Bugzilla on Windows In-Reply-To: <41B228BD.5050000@mozilla.org> Message-ID: <20041205042822.75185.qmail@web12504.mail.yahoo.com> FWIW, there are some proposed changes to the docs that do clear up a lot of that language: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=239852 Gervase Markham wrote: Leaving aside the stupidity of asking on Slashdot when he could have asked in the newsgroup, we need to remove that silly piece of text from the tip docs, as it's no longer true. Bruce Armstrong [TeamSybase] --------------------------------- http://www.teamsybase.com Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words. -- Francis of Assisi http://www.needhim.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerv at mozilla.org Sun Dec 5 08:54:18 2004 From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 08:54:18 +0000 Subject: Summary of comments on Slashdot article In-Reply-To: <41B23FEE.9030101@bugzilla.org> References: <41B22B54.5000606@mozilla.org> <41B23FEE.9030101@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <41B2CCBA.3080005@mozilla.org> David Miller wrote: > The docs guys have been going crazy the last few weeks, between Shane > taking an active role in the docs and Jake resurfacing. :) We might > actually have decent docs in the 2.20 tarball :) That's a bit harsh - the 2.16 docs were pretty good. Gerv From justdave at bugzilla.org Sun Dec 5 09:01:15 2004 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 04:01:15 -0500 Subject: Summary of comments on Slashdot article In-Reply-To: <41B2CCBA.3080005@mozilla.org> References: <41B22B54.5000606@mozilla.org> <41B23FEE.9030101@bugzilla.org> <41B2CCBA.3080005@mozilla.org> Message-ID: <41B2CE5B.9030105@bugzilla.org> Gervase Markham wrote: > David Miller wrote: > >> The docs guys have been going crazy the last few weeks, between Shane >> taking an active role in the docs and Jake resurfacing. :) We might >> actually have decent docs in the 2.20 tarball :) > > That's a bit harsh - the 2.16 docs were pretty good. Yes, but they haven't been updated much since then. :) (with a few exceptions) -- Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ From kevin.benton at amd.com Mon Dec 6 15:11:23 2004 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Kevin Benton) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 08:11:23 -0700 Subject: Summary of comments on Slashdot article In-Reply-To: <41B22B54.5000606@mozilla.org> Message-ID: <20041206151123.9F42B60E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> > There weren't many complaints about Bugzilla's function, and some nice > things said about it, but we need to work on our installation process - > either actually, or the perception of it. People still think Bugzilla is > hard to install. I would agree that on my home Fedora Core 1 system, it was very difficult to install because of the very large number of CPAN libraries that were required and many didn't install properly 'out of the box.' Does that mean that Bugzilla itself was difficult to install? No, but to get to the point where installation could be done was very difficult. Kevin From kevin.benton at amd.com Mon Dec 6 16:41:26 2004 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Kevin Benton) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:41:26 -0700 Subject: Saved Queries in 2.19.1 In-Reply-To: <20041206162801.96CF960E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> Message-ID: <20041206164126.1B60060E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> Actually, I just looked at the code and the ability to save named queries was removed somewhere between 2.17.4 and 2.19.1. That is an important feature for this company. Anyone have any suggestions on how to get it back? > -----Original Message----- > From: mozilla-webtools-admin at mozilla.org [mailto:mozilla-webtools- > admin at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Benton > Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:28 AM > To: mozilla-webtools at mozilla.org > Subject: Saved Queries in 2.19.1 > > In our customized versions of 2.17.3 and 2.17.4, we have the ability to > save > named queries. I wonder - is there a patch that was released to create > this > functionality or was it a local customization? > > Kevin > > > _______________________________________________ > mozilla-webtools mailing list > mozilla-webtools at mozilla.org > http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-webtools From chicks at chicks.net Mon Dec 6 16:46:13 2004 From: chicks at chicks.net (Christopher Hicks) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:46:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Summary of comments on Slashdot article In-Reply-To: <20041206151123.9F42B60E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> References: <20041206151123.9F42B60E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Kevin Benton wrote: > I would agree that on my home Fedora Core 1 system, it was very > difficult to install because of the very large number of CPAN libraries > that were required and many didn't install properly 'out of the box.' > Does that mean that Bugzilla itself was difficult to install? No, but > to get to the point where installation could be done was very difficult. This sort of thing would really be best handled by making a set of RPM's that make Bugzilla installation automatic. I'm working on such RPM's for Fedora currently actually. :) I'd like to get some changes pushed upstream to the Fedora httpd rpm, but I haven't even embarked on that journey yet. I expect to release something after Christmas. -- "Fans of Mozilla's free, open-source Firefox browser make the ardent Apple faithful look like a bunch of slackers." - Rebecca Lieb at clickz.com From gerv at mozilla.org Mon Dec 6 17:17:54 2004 From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:17:54 +0000 Subject: Saved Queries in 2.19.1 In-Reply-To: <20041206164126.1B60060E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> References: <20041206164126.1B60060E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> Message-ID: <41B49442.6070307@mozilla.org> Kevin Benton wrote: > Actually, I just looked at the code and the ability to save named queries > was removed somewhere between 2.17.4 and 2.19.1. No, it wasn't - it was just moved. As part of a drive to simplify the UI, you now save searches from the results screen rather than the query creation screen - scroll to the bottom. This means that you don't do the rather counter-intuitive "formulate query - run query - yes this is the right query - press back - type in save name - press Search to save query" but "formulate query - run query - yes this is the right query - type in name - save query". Gerv From suson at TuckerEnergy.com Mon Dec 6 17:58:14 2004 From: suson at TuckerEnergy.com (Steven Suson) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 11:58:14 -0600 Subject: Summary of comments on Slashdot article In-Reply-To: References: <20041206151123.9F42B60E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> Message-ID: <41B49DB6.6020405@TuckerEnergy.com> I would have to agree with the dependency issues. I think it's great that Bugzilla is planning on providing RPM's, but I do request that the SRPM's of all such RPM's be available also. Thanks in advance, Steven Suson Christopher Hicks wrote: > On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Kevin Benton wrote: > >> I would agree that on my home Fedora Core 1 system, it was very >> difficult to install because of the very large number of CPAN >> libraries that were required and many didn't install properly 'out of >> the box.' Does that mean that Bugzilla itself was difficult to >> install? No, but to get to the point where installation could be >> done was very difficult. > > > This sort of thing would really be best handled by making a set of > RPM's that make Bugzilla installation automatic. I'm working on such > RPM's for Fedora currently actually. :) I'd like to get some changes > pushed upstream to the Fedora httpd rpm, but I haven't even embarked > on that journey yet. I expect to release something after Christmas. > From chicks at chicks.net Mon Dec 6 18:08:11 2004 From: chicks at chicks.net (Christopher Hicks) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:08:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Summary of comments on Slashdot article In-Reply-To: <41B49DB6.6020405@TuckerEnergy.com> References: <20041206151123.9F42B60E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> <41B49DB6.6020405@TuckerEnergy.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Steven Suson wrote: > I would have to agree with the dependency issues. I think it's great that > Bugzilla is planning on providing RPM's, but I do request that the SRPM's of > all such RPM's be available also. I'm not official, but the SRPM's will of course be available. -- "Fans of Mozilla's free, open-source Firefox browser make the ardent Apple faithful look like a bunch of slackers." - Rebecca Lieb at clickz.com From chicks at chicks.net Mon Dec 6 18:11:22 2004 From: chicks at chicks.net (Christopher Hicks) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:11:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Saved Queries in 2.19.1 In-Reply-To: <41B49442.6070307@mozilla.org> References: <20041206164126.1B60060E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> <41B49442.6070307@mozilla.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Gervase Markham wrote: > No, it wasn't - it was just moved. As part of a drive to simplify the UI, you > now save searches from the results screen rather than the query creation > screen - scroll to the bottom. > > This means that you don't do the rather counter-intuitive > > "formulate query - run query - yes this is the right query - press back - > type in save name - press Search to save query" > > but > > "formulate query - run query - yes this is the right query - type in name - > save query". That makes sense, but for those of us who do it right the first time being able to create a query and name it and put it on our bottom bar all at the same time was very handy. So you've gone from: - get it right with one click on one screen to - get it right on one screen, see the expected results, and then click to save/name it. Admittedly this is much easier for newbs to understand, but I hope somebody produces a patch that reverses the dumbing down for folks who are used to and like the old way. -- "Fans of Mozilla's free, open-source Firefox browser make the ardent Apple faithful look like a bunch of slackers." - Rebecca Lieb at clickz.com From mkanat at kerio.com Mon Dec 6 20:25:55 2004 From: mkanat at kerio.com (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 12:25:55 -0800 Subject: Summary of comments on Slashdot article In-Reply-To: References: <20041206151123.9F42B60E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> Message-ID: <1102364755.17985.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 11:46 -0500, Christopher Hicks wrote: > This sort of thing would really be best handled by making a set of RPM's > that make Bugzilla installation automatic. I'm working on such RPM's for > Fedora currently actually. :) I'd like to get some changes pushed > upstream to the Fedora httpd rpm, but I haven't even embarked on that > journey yet. I expect to release something after Christmas. ATrpms has pretty much all the RPMs needed to install Bugzilla on Fedora: http://www.atrpms.net/ If you're using Fedora, and you're using my (fedorafaq.org) yum.conf, it's pretty easy to download stuff from ATrpms. -Max From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Dec 6 20:44:01 2004 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:44:01 +0100 Subject: Summary of comments on Slashdot article In-Reply-To: <1102364755.17985.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20041206151123.9F42B60E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> <1102364755.17985.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20041206204401.GA21332@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:25:55PM -0800, Max Kanat-Alexander wrote: > On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 11:46 -0500, Christopher Hicks wrote: > > This sort of thing would really be best handled by making a set of RPM's > > that make Bugzilla installation automatic. I'm working on such RPM's for > > Fedora currently actually. :) I'd like to get some changes pushed > > upstream to the Fedora httpd rpm, but I haven't even embarked on that > > journey yet. I expect to release something after Christmas. > > ATrpms has pretty much all the RPMs needed to install Bugzilla on > Fedora: > > http://www.atrpms.net/ I also have a (yet non-public) bugzilla rpm (currently at 2.18rc3), but I'm quite unhappy about its post installation scripts (it creates a default bugzilla instance). All it _should_ do is store bugzilla into /usr/share/bugzilla waiting for someone to copy it over to /srv//bugzilla. Perhaps with a smart bugzilla-create-instance script that also creates the database and sets in database and localconfig a randomly chosen password. > If you're using Fedora, and you're using my (fedorafaq.org) yum.conf, > it's pretty easy to download stuff from ATrpms. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chicks at chicks.net Mon Dec 6 20:47:38 2004 From: chicks at chicks.net (Christopher Hicks) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 15:47:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Summary of comments on Slashdot article In-Reply-To: <1102364755.17985.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20041206151123.9F42B60E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> <1102364755.17985.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Max Kanat-Alexander wrote: > On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 11:46 -0500, Christopher Hicks wrote: >> This sort of thing would really be best handled by making a set of RPM's >> that make Bugzilla installation automatic. I'm working on such RPM's for >> Fedora currently actually. :) I'd like to get some changes pushed >> upstream to the Fedora httpd rpm, but I haven't even embarked on that >> journey yet. I expect to release something after Christmas. > > ATrpms has pretty much all the RPMs needed to install Bugzilla on > Fedora: > http://www.atrpms.net/ I know. I wasn't planning on redoing the wheel beyond what seems necessary. > If you're using Fedora, and you're using my (fedorafaq.org) yum.conf, > it's pretty easy to download stuff from ATrpms. I've used that on several of our desktops already actually. I try to keep my servers to "official" stuff as much as possible. -- "Fans of Mozilla's free, open-source Firefox browser make the ardent Apple faithful look like a bunch of slackers." - Rebecca Lieb at clickz.com From chicks at chicks.net Mon Dec 6 20:54:08 2004 From: chicks at chicks.net (Christopher Hicks) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 15:54:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Summary of comments on Slashdot article In-Reply-To: <20041206204401.GA21332@neu.nirvana> References: <20041206151123.9F42B60E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> <1102364755.17985.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20041206204401.GA21332@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Axel Thimm wrote: > I also have a (yet non-public) bugzilla rpm (currently at 2.18rc3), but > I'm quite unhappy about its post installation scripts (it creates a > default bugzilla instance). If you can share it I'd be willing to work on it. > All it _should_ do is store bugzilla into /usr/share/bugzilla waiting > for someone to copy it over to /srv//bugzilla. Perhaps with a > smart bugzilla-create-instance script that also creates the database and > sets in database and localconfig a randomly chosen password. That's similar to my plan, but I want each instance to be installed from rpm by changing the prefix each time. This way (as I understand it) it would allow each install to be upgraded when the repository upgraded. We're doing a few bugzilla hosts now for various folks and I'd be a lot more active at keeping everybody up to date if I could do it with yum. -- "Fans of Mozilla's free, open-source Firefox browser make the ardent Apple faithful look like a bunch of slackers." - Rebecca Lieb at clickz.com From kevin.benton at amd.com Mon Dec 6 21:18:42 2004 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Kevin Benton) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 14:18:42 -0700 Subject: Does this look right? (2.19.1 upgrade of search-advanced.html.tmpl) Message-ID: <20041206211842.2A77960E5E@ldcmail.amd.com> Advanced Querying Using Boolean Charts: --- Bug # Summary Classification Product Version Platform URL OS/Version Status Status Whiteboard Keywords Resolution Severity Priority Component AssignedTo ReportedBy Votes QAContact CC BugsThisDependsOn OtherBugsDependingOnThis Attachment description Attachment data Attachment filename Attachment mime type Attachment is patch Attachment is obsolete Attachment is private Target Milestone Last changed date Days since bug changed Comment Alias Ever Confirmed Reporter Accessible CC Accessible Group Estimated Hours Flag Flag Requestee Flag Setter Content Time Since Owner Touched --- is equal to is not equal to is equal to any of the strings contains the string contains the string (exact case) does not contain the string contains all of the strings contains any of the strings contains regexp does not contain regexp is less than is greater than contains any of the words contains all of the words contains none of the words changed before changed after changed from changed to changed by Or --- Bug # Summary Classification Product Version Platform URL OS/Version Status Status Whiteboard Keywords Resolution Severity Priority Component AssignedTo ReportedBy Votes QAContact CC BugsThisDependsOn OtherBugsDependingOnThis Attachment description Attachment data Attachment filename Attachment mime type Attachment is patch Attachment is obsolete Attachment is private Target Milestone Last changed date Days since bug changed Comment Alias Ever Confirmed Reporter Accessible CC Accessible Group Estimated Hours Flag Flag Requestee Flag Setter Content Time Since Owner Touched --- is equal to is not equal to is equal to any of the strings contains the string contains the string (exact case) does not contain the string contains all of the strings contains any of the strings contains regexp does not contain regexp is less than is greater than contains any of the words contains all of the words contains none of the words changed before changed after changed from changed to changed by And --- Bug # Summary Classification Product Version Platform URL OS/Version Status Status Whiteboard Keywords Resolution Severity Priority Component AssignedTo ReportedBy Votes QAContact CC BugsThisDependsOn OtherBugsDependingOnThis Attachment description Attachment data Attachment filename Attachment mime type Attachment is patch Attachment is obsolete Attachment is private Target Milestone Last changed date Days since bug changed Comment Alias Ever Confirmed Reporter Accessible CC Accessible Group Estimated Hours Flag Flag Requestee Flag Setter Content Time Since Owner Touched --- is equal to is not equal to is equal to any of the strings contains the string contains the string (exact case) does not contain the string contains all of the strings contains any of the strings contains regexp does not contain regexp is less than is greater than contains any of the words contains all of the words contains none of the words changed before changed after changed from changed to changed by Or --- Bug # Summary Classification Product Version Platform URL OS/Version Status Status Whiteboard Keywords Resolution Severity Priority Component AssignedTo ReportedBy Votes QAContact CC BugsThisDependsOn OtherBugsDependingOnThis Attachment description Attachment data Attachment filename Attachment mime type Attachment is patch Attachment is obsolete Attachment is private Target Milestone Last changed date Days since bug changed Comment Alias Ever Confirmed Reporter Accessible CC Accessible Group Estimated Hours Flag Flag Requestee Flag Setter Content Time Since Owner Touched --- is equal to is not equal to is equal to any of the strings contains the string contains the string (exact case) does not contain the string contains all of the strings contains any of the strings contains regexp does not contain regexp is less than is greater than contains any of the words contains all of the words contains none of the words changed before changed after changed from changed to changed by Sorry for the in-line HTML all. Does the above look right? I'm hitting the advanced search HTML for the first time yet it shows "negate" in the third box, along with other rows that I would assume should not be there because I haven't clicked on any additional buttons. Kevin Benton Perl/Bugzilla Developer Advanced Micro Devices -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justdave at bugzilla.org Mon Dec 6 21:24:15 2004 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:24:15 -0500 Subject: Summary of comments on Slashdot article In-Reply-To: References: <20041206151123.9F42B60E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> <1102364755.17985.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20041206204401.GA21332@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <41B4CDFF.5000706@bugzilla.org> Christopher Hicks wrote: > On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Axel Thimm wrote: > >> I also have a (yet non-public) bugzilla rpm (currently at 2.18rc3), >> but I'm quite unhappy about its post installation scripts (it creates >> a default bugzilla instance). > > That's similar to my plan, but I want each instance to be installed from > rpm by changing the prefix each time. This way (as I understand it) it > would allow each install to be upgraded when the repository upgraded. > We're doing a few bugzilla hosts now for various folks and I'd be a lot > more active at keeping everybody up to date if I could do it with yum. We need to get the rest of the configurable file locations stuff in to help this out. We already have the data and template directories configurable via variables in Bugzilla/Config.pm. We need to find a way to make the library path (i.e. location of Bugzilla.pm and the Bugzilla (capital B) directory) and the path to the static content (css, js, etc) configurable there as well. This would make RPMs and Debs and whatnot be able to get all the files in the right places and working with only having to patch Bugzilla/Config.pm (and perhaps the use lib lines at the tops of the perl scripts in the case of the library path) We also need to fix the apache config suggestions to put everything needed for Bugzilla inside the Bugzilla block so it doesn't interfere with anything else on the server. We could also supply a bugzilla.conf file to be placed in the conf.d directory on the newer Apaches. -- Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ From justdave at bugzilla.org Mon Dec 6 21:43:37 2004 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:43:37 -0500 Subject: Does this look right? (2.19.1 upgrade of search-advanced.html.tmpl) In-Reply-To: <20041206211842.2A77960E5E@ldcmail.amd.com> References: <20041206211842.2A77960E5E@ldcmail.amd.com> Message-ID: <41B4D289.8080703@bugzilla.org> Kevin Benton wrote: > Sorry for the in-line HTML all. Does the above look right? I?m hitting > the advanced search HTML for the first time yet it shows ?negate? in the > third box, along with other rows that I would assume should not be there > because I haven?t clicked on any additional buttons. You're missing the "negate" checkbox, which should be to the left of each row, and is probably the source of the "negate" string in the textbox. Something apparently didn't merge well for you. See http://landfill.bugzilla.org/bugzilla-tip/query.cgi for an example of what it's supposed to look like. -- Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ From kevin.benton at amd.com Mon Dec 6 22:15:53 2004 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Kevin Benton) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 15:15:53 -0700 Subject: Does this look right? (2.19.1 upgrade of In-Reply-To: <41B4D289.8080703@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <20041206221553.8377D60E5D@ldcmail.amd.com> Thanks Dave. Feature request: Can we change "Find a specific bug" to "Basic Search" on that page? I've already done it here because people here seem to say it makes more sense, not to mention that "Find a specific bug" can come up with more than one result. > -----Original Message----- > From: developers-owner at bugzilla.org [mailto:developers-owner at bugzilla.org] > On Behalf Of David Miller > Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 2:44 PM > To: developers at bugzilla.org > Subject: Re: Does this look right? (2.19.1 upgrade of search- > advanced.html.tmpl) > > Kevin Benton wrote: > > > Sorry for the in-line HTML all. Does the above look right? I'm hitting > > the advanced search HTML for the first time yet it shows "negate" in the > > third box, along with other rows that I would assume should not be there > > because I haven't clicked on any additional buttons. > > You're missing the "negate" checkbox, which should be to the left of > each row, and is probably the source of the "negate" string in the > textbox. Something apparently didn't merge well for you. > > See http://landfill.bugzilla.org/bugzilla-tip/query.cgi for an example > of what it's supposed to look like. > > -- > Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System > http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ > - > To view or change your list settings, click here: > From jake at bugzilla.org Mon Dec 6 23:21:03 2004 From: jake at bugzilla.org (Jake) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:21:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Summary of comments on Slashdot article In-Reply-To: <41B23FEE.9030101@bugzilla.org> References: <41B22B54.5000606@mozilla.org> <41B23FEE.9030101@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <56760.204.208.183.252.1102375263.squirrel@mail.steenhagen.us> My Internet connection appears to be back now so I should be able to start going through some of these docs updates in the near future. From what I understand (I haven't actually had much of a chance to look at the win32 docs update bug) 2.18 runs on Windows with no code changes. This certainly makes the pain of installing Bugzilla on windows much less. In fact, I really should try it myself :P. I'll have to remmeber to take a look at his article when I get a chance. While this person certainly could have asked his question on the newsgroup, a little exposure on Slashdot is actually pretty cool :). Wish I would have seen it when it was first posted as it would have been nice to make an "informative" post or two, but oh well :). > We might actually have decent docs in the 2.20 tarball :) I'd actually try and slip some more updates into the 2.18 tarball, but I don't know when that's gonna be rolled and I know that it won't be held up for docs (nor would I want it to be). > Gervase Markham wrote: > > >> There weren't many complaints about Bugzilla's function, and some nice >> things said about it, but we need to work on our installation process - >> either actually, or the perception of it. People still think Bugzilla >> is hard to install. > > And part of that problem is our documentation, which still *says* it's > hard to install, and people believe it. :) (hence the quote from the docs > in the banner article on slashdot). > > That is actually already in the process of being fixed (and may already > be, I haven't looked lately, but I know there's been major action on that > bug, even in the few days prior to that article going up :) > > The docs guys have been going crazy the last few weeks, between Shane > taking an active role in the docs and Jake resurfacing. :) We might > actually have decent docs in the 2.20 tarball :) > > -- > Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System > http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ > - > To view or change your list settings, click here: > > > From jake at bugzilla.org Mon Dec 6 23:34:42 2004 From: jake at bugzilla.org (Jake) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:34:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Analysis] Templates: The good, the bad, the ugly Message-ID: <59734.204.208.183.252.1102376082.squirrel@mail.steenhagen.us> The US Military is often seen as having the ability to police itself and correct its own problems. While this ability is normally exaggerated, it does exist to some extent. The reason for this is, in part, the after action review. After any mission (big or small) comes an honest no holds barred assesment of how it went from those who participated. The normal questions are: 1. What was supposed to happen? 2. What did happen? 3. What went right? 4. What went wrong? 5. What could be done better next time? I thought it might be interesting to bring this concept to Bugzilla, especially when dealing with large changes. So, allow me to go first. -=-=-=-=-=- What was supposed to happen? Visualization items (eg, the HTML, etc) was supposed to be completly seperated from code for all content generated by Bugzilla. What did happen? HTML (js, xml, etc.) was all grouped into seperate template files, intersperced with template directives, for all user facing pages generated by Bugzilla. What went right? Before a single bit is sent back to the browser, all data is complete. This avoids the situation where some piece of information is desired in the header but can't be placed there because the information hasn't been processed yet (I seem to remember this situation at least once pre-templates). Translation is much easier because all the words seen by the user are in one place. Previously, there was often a single word (or phrase), a bunch of perl/database calls/whatever, a couple phrases, more code, more content, more code, etc. Bugzilla can now support more than one language on a single installation. This was not even remotely possible pre-templates. What went wrong? While it's true that the presentation and the perl code are now seperate from each other, there is still a lot of code in the middle of this presentation. This code is in the form of template directives, some of which are just as complicated as perl code. Also frustrating is the fact that the template directives are basically another programming language to deal with and have no support for context colorization is most common editors (vim, emacs, etc). Administrative pages are still not (as far as I'm aware) templates. I realize that this isn't considered a priority, but it is still a fact. Templates first came to life in Bugzilla as part of a completely unrelated patch with little to no discussion beforehand about the implimentation, template package, etc.). The process was started in the middle of a development cycle and became one of the blockers for the next release. Because it was such a huge undertaking and reviews often took a considerable amount of time (and that was just finding the reviewer!), the stable release was delayed numerous times. Speed. While I haven't run any benchmarks, I've gotta believe that the introduction of another processing engine (eg, Template Toolkit) had a negative impact on our speed. What could be done better next time? Obviously there won't be a next time for implimenting templates in Bugzilla, but suggestions here can mostly likely be taken into consideration for other changes. It would have been nice if discussion had transpired about methods for templatization before any work was done/package was chosen. I'm going from distant memory a lot here, but as I recall there wasn't much discussion about what was the best plan of attack. It also would have been nice to have taken the scope of such a change into consideration before implimenting it. While templates are nice to have, it would have been possible to release 2.16 without the templates and have had that been a stated goal for 2.18... possibly even the only stated goal. It would have given more time for discussion/proof of concept and would have allowed us to step up the pace of releases (a long stated goal). -=-=-=-=-=- I'd like to hear your comments on my analysis as well as your own good/bad/improve list (after all, an AAR isn't a one man show :). From chicks at chicks.net Mon Dec 6 23:39:20 2004 From: chicks at chicks.net (Christopher Hicks) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:39:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Summary of comments on Slashdot article In-Reply-To: <56760.204.208.183.252.1102375263.squirrel@mail.steenhagen.us> References: <41B22B54.5000606@mozilla.org> <41B23FEE.9030101@bugzilla.org> <56760.204.208.183.252.1102375263.squirrel@mail.steenhagen.us> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Jake wrote: > While this person certainly could have asked his question on the > newsgroup, a little exposure on Slashdot is actually pretty cool :). > Wish I would have seen it when it was first posted as it would have been > nice to make an "informative" post or two, but oh well :). You could still. It usually takes a few weeks for discussion to get shut down. > I'd actually try and slip some more updates into the 2.18 tarball, but I > don't know when that's gonna be rolled and I know that it won't be held > up for docs (nor would I want it to be). If history serves as any example there will be updates to 2.18, so even if docs for 2.18.0 aren't "all that they could be", 2.18.1 could/should include docs updates. -- "Fans of Mozilla's free, open-source Firefox browser make the ardent Apple faithful look like a bunch of slackers." - Rebecca Lieb at clickz.com From preed at sigkill.com Tue Dec 7 00:05:45 2004 From: preed at sigkill.com (J. Paul Reed) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 16:05:45 -0800 Subject: [Analysis] Templates: The good, the bad, the ugly In-Reply-To: <59734.204.208.183.252.1102376082.squirrel@mail.steenhagen.us> References: <59734.204.208.183.252.1102376082.squirrel@mail.steenhagen.us> Message-ID: <20041207000545.GC14010@sigkill.com> On 06 Dec 2004 at 18:34:42, Jake arranged the bits on my disk to say: > What went wrong? > > While it's true that the presentation and the perl code are now seperate > from each other, there is still a lot of code in the middle of this > presentation. This code is in the form of template directives, some of > which are just as complicated as perl code. Also frustrating is the fact > that the template directives are basically another programming language > to deal with and have no support for context colorization is most common > editors (vim, emacs, etc). Or, put another way: we could've used something lighter weight than Template Toolkit. Templating engines that make you learn/use a new language (when the one you have is perfectly fine) are annoying. Use of a templating engine like TT in Perl is debatable; use of similar engines in PHP is completely asinine. Also, there are some templates that use callbacks to call back into perl-code to do more work; when mail gets sent, this happens. It's ugly and should be replaced... but it was originally done that way to keep the same behavior as the old stuff (where email addresses showed up as mail was sent to them). Later, Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------ J. Paul Reed -- 0xDF8708F8 || preed at sigkill.com || web.sigkill.com/preed Math, my dear boy, is nothing more than the lesbian sister of biology. -- Peter Griffin, Family Guy I use PGP; you should use PGP too... if only to piss off John Ashcroft From bugzilla at chimpychompy.org Tue Dec 7 08:59:16 2004 From: bugzilla at chimpychompy.org (GavinS) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 08:59:16 +0000 Subject: [Analysis] Templates: The good, the bad, the ugly In-Reply-To: <59734.204.208.183.252.1102376082.squirrel@mail.steenhagen.us> References: <59734.204.208.183.252.1102376082.squirrel@mail.steenhagen.us> Message-ID: <16821.28900.776581.607300@offsite.i418.iplbath.com> >>>>> "Jake" == Jake writes: Jake> Also frustrating is the fact that the template Jake> directives are basically another programming language to deal Jake> with and have no support for context colorization is most common Jake> editors (vim, emacs, etc). Just for info, there is a simple TT mode for emacs available, which google should find. Jake> Administrative pages are still not (as far as I'm aware) Jake> templates. I realize that this isn't considered a priority, but Jake> it is still a fact. They are 1/2 done at the moment. From kevin.benton at amd.com Tue Dec 7 17:00:41 2004 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Kevin Benton) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:00:41 -0700 Subject: Bugzilla 2.19.1 search-advanced.html.tmpl JS Error Message-ID: <20041207170041.870E060E5E@ldcmail.amd.com> I'm running into JavaScript errors when attempting to load search-advanced.html.tmpl in Internet Exploder 6.0. It seems that IE doesn't like the call to doOnSelectProduct because it hasn't been defined yet. Is anyone else running into this problem? I'm wondering if it make sense to create a .js file for all the JavaScript then putting .