From mkanat at bugzilla.org Tue Dec 5 20:28:53 2006 From: mkanat at bugzilla.org (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:28:53 -0800 Subject: windows.bugzilla.org Message-ID: <1165350533.2525.7.camel@es-lappy> We now have a Windows Server 2003 testing machine for the Bugzilla Project! You can see the first installation here: http://windows.bugzilla.org/bugzilla-tip/ That's running on Apache. I'm also going to set up IIS later, on a different port. Because this is a Windows machine (and thus a little more touchy about security and licensing), the reasons that we give out accounts on this machine will be much more limited than the reasons we give out landfill accounts. If you are a Bugzilla developer with a good reason to need access to a Windows machine, contact me and I can set you up, and then I can tell you how the machine is configured. Oh, and a big thanks to the Mozilla Community Giving Program, which set this all up for us and paid for everything. -Max -- http://www.everythingsolved.com/ Everything Solved: Competent, Friendly Bugzilla and Linux Services From lpsolit at gmail.com Sun Dec 10 15:11:52 2006 From: lpsolit at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Buclin?=) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:11:52 +0100 Subject: Bugzilla meeting on Tuesday, Dec 12 at 19:00 GMT Message-ID: <457C23B8.30904@gmail.com> As usual, our next Bugzilla meeting will take place on IRC on Tuesday, Dec 12 at 19:00 GMT (11:00 PST, 20:00 CET) in the #bugzilla-meeting channel. The agenda is available at http://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:Meetings. Feel free to add new items if there is something special you would like to discuss at the meeting. LpSolit From kevin.benton at amd.com Wed Dec 13 22:31:54 2006 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Kevin Benton) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:31:54 -0700 Subject: Updates in Bugs_Activity don't include duplicate markers Message-ID: <45807F5A.1090802@amd.com> I'm trying to figure out the decision behind not including state changes to the duplicates table in the bugs_activity logs. Anyone here able to help? Till I looked at the code, I thought that all changes to bugs past creation (except comments and attachments) were supposed to be logged in bugs_activity so that the full history of a bug could be determined. Was that an oops or should I file a bug on that? Maybe I'm missing something, but here's what I found - when filing a bug, a duplicate log entry is made in the longdescs table against the master bug and an entry is added to the duplicates table. No entry is made regarding the duplicate in the bugs_activity table. The user sees that both the master and duplicate bugs are updated from the template. When a bug is re-opened, the code removes the duplicate entries, but it doesn't log them or display a message back to the user. Also, no note is added to the longdescs table for the master bug. So, if I'm watching the master bug but not the duplicate, I would have to actually click on the link to the duplicate to find out that it's no longer a duplicate bug. That may raise concerns for me. What I'm thinking is that there needs to be a set of activity entries against both bugs detailing these issues. What do others think before I get serious and file a bug on this? -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AMDLogo.png Type: image/png Size: 1784 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kevin.benton.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 892 bytes Desc: not available URL: From justdave at bugzilla.org Wed Dec 13 23:14:48 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:14:48 -0500 Subject: Updates in Bugs_Activity don't include duplicate markers In-Reply-To: <45807F5A.1090802@amd.com> References: <45807F5A.1090802@amd.com> Message-ID: <45808968.6060801@bugzilla.org> Kevin Benton wrote on 12/13/06 5:31 PM: > I'm trying to figure out the decision behind not including state changes > to the duplicates table in the bugs_activity logs. Anyone here able to > help? > > Till I looked at the code, I thought that all changes to bugs past > creation (except comments and attachments) were supposed to be logged in > bugs_activity so that the full history of a bug could be determined. > Was that an oops or should I file a bug on that? Some history of how duplicates were handled might be in order to help explain it. :) Originally, *nothing* was done about duplicates except to add a comment to the bugs saying so. Creating the duplicates table was done later to make it easier to automate statistics type stuff (it's really hard to scan comments looking for duplicate indicators, and more so now that we've localized them). > What I'm thinking is that there needs to be a set of activity entries > against both bugs detailing these issues. What do others think before I > get serious and file a bug on this? Sounds like a good idea to me. field names could be "dupe of" on the duplicate bug's activity table and I'm not sure what to use (just "duplicate" maybe?) on the remaining master bug. It may be possible to back-date to the beginning of time in the activity table by scanning for resolution=DUPLICATE changes and looking for comments that happened at the same time on the affected bugs. -- Dave Miller http://www.justdave.net/ System Administrator, Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.bugzilla.org/ From justdave at bugzilla.org Wed Dec 13 23:17:26 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:17:26 -0500 Subject: bugzilla.org mail in flux Message-ID: <45808A06.80300@bugzilla.org> We had a 7 or 8 hour outage in mail yesterday where any mail sent to an @bugzilla.org email address would have bounced with an "MX loops back to me" error due to an errant DNS change related to our current service provider. There is a possibility of additional outages over the next couple days while we work through moving the domain onto Mozilla Corporation-operated servers (it's currently on outside hosting at the place I used to host my personal website). I'll try to keep it to a minimum, but wanted to give everyone a heads-up at least. -- Dave Miller http://www.justdave.net/ System Administrator, Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.bugzilla.org/ From after.fallout at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 01:17:55 2006 From: after.fallout at gmail.com (bill barry) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:17:55 -0500 Subject: Updates in Bugs_Activity don't include duplicate markers In-Reply-To: <45808968.6060801@bugzilla.org> References: <45807F5A.1090802@amd.com> <45808968.6060801@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: On 12/13/06, David Miller wrote: > > It may be possible to back-date to the beginning of time in the activity > table by scanning for resolution=DUPLICATE changes and looking for > comments that happened at the same time on the affected bugs. If this would be done (and I think it would be a great idea), should it become part of the sanity check or checksetup? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justdave at bugzilla.org Thu Dec 14 02:58:17 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:58:17 -0500 Subject: Updates in Bugs_Activity don't include duplicate markers In-Reply-To: References: <45807F5A.1090802@amd.com> <45808968.6060801@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <4580BDC9.9040105@bugzilla.org> bill barry wrote on 12/13/06 8:17 PM: > > On 12/13/06, *David Miller* > wrote: > > It may be possible to back-date to the beginning of time in the activity > table by scanning for resolution=DUPLICATE changes and looking for > comments that happened at the same time on the affected bugs. > > > If this would be done (and I think it would be a great idea), should it > become part of the sanity check or checksetup? Probably just checksetup. Once it's initially populated it should be low maintenance. -- Dave Miller http://www.justdave.net/ System Administrator, Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.bugzilla.org/ From kevin.benton at amd.com Thu Dec 14 19:24:57 2006 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Kevin Benton) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:24:57 -0700 Subject: Updates in Bugs_Activity don't include duplicate markers In-Reply-To: <4580BDC9.9040105@bugzilla.org> References: <45807F5A.1090802@amd.com> <45808968.6060801@bugzilla.org> <4580BDC9.9040105@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <4581A509.2080106@amd.com> David Miller wrote: > bill barry wrote on 12/13/06 8:17 PM: >> >> On 12/13/06, *David Miller* > > wrote: >> >> It may be possible to back-date to the beginning of time in the >> activity >> table by scanning for resolution=DUPLICATE changes and looking for >> comments that happened at the same time on the affected bugs. >> >> >> If this would be done (and I think it would be a great idea), should >> it become part of the sanity check or checksetup? > > Probably just checksetup. Once it's initially populated it should be > low maintenance. > Bug 363867 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=363867) has been filed as a result of this discussion. :) Thanks for the feedback Dave and Bill. :) Kevin -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AMDLogo.png Type: image/png Size: 1784 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kevin.benton.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 915 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gerv at mozilla.org Mon Dec 18 14:10:26 2006 From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:10:26 +0000 Subject: Using hooks for b.m.o.-specific changes Message-ID: <4586A152.3040009@mozilla.org> While we are porting all of our b.m.o.-specific hacks forward to the 3.0RC1 codebase before the upgrade, are we taking the opportunity to change them all to use the hooks mechanism? http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/html/cust-hooks.html Even if the patch had to add the hook as well as use it, moving to this would make porting patches forward next time a lot easier, and would also give us some practical experience of using the extension mechanism we tell everyone else to use. Also, while we are focussed on b.m.o.-specific patches, the following two bugs have been waiting for review and application for ages. The first one is particularly important; a posse of Mozilla hackers asked for this and another change ages ago: "People with 'canconfirm' should be able to mark bugs as DUPLICATE and WORKSFORME (cantriage)" https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=314056 "Front page quicksearch uses onclick on the button instead of onsubmit on the form" https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=301071 Can these be folded into the process? Gerv From justdave at bugzilla.org Tue Dec 19 02:39:05 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:39:05 -0500 Subject: bugzilla.org mail server move completed Message-ID: <458750C9.6010507@bugzilla.org> The bugzilla.org mail server move has been completed. We're now hosted entirely on mozilla.org hardware. If anyone notices any problems, let me know. I ended up copying the entire majordomo2 installation over intact (minus the other domains, and upgrading it in the process), because it was less work than trying to figure out how to convert the archives to work in mailman. :) We may still convert to mailman at some point, but it's no longer a rush job. -- Dave Miller http://www.justdave.net/ System Administrator, Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.bugzilla.org/ From justdave at bugzilla.org Tue Dec 19 19:45:27 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:45:27 -0500 Subject: bugzilla.org mail server move completed In-Reply-To: <458750C9.6010507@bugzilla.org> References: <458750C9.6010507@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <45884157.1080308@bugzilla.org> David Miller wrote on 12/18/06 9:39 PM: > The bugzilla.org mail server move has been completed. We're now hosted > entirely on mozilla.org hardware. > > If anyone notices any problems, let me know. OK, some of the bugzilla.org addresses were bouncing, and some weren't. No idea why. Restarted postfix and everything started working. So if anyone tried to mail anyone @bugzilla.org in the last 14 hours and got a bounce notice back, please re-send. -- Dave Miller http://www.justdave.net/ System Administrator, Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.bugzilla.org/ From fergus at yahoo-inc.com Thu Dec 21 08:27:37 2006 From: fergus at yahoo-inc.com (Fergus Sullivan) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:27:37 -0800 Subject: bz_lock_tables - how much, how often? Message-ID: i've noticed mysql.pm (2.22) includes the following code: sub bz_lock_tables { my ($self, @tables) = @_; my $list = join(', ', @tables); # Check first if there was no lock before if ($self->{private_bz_tables_locked}) { ThrowCodeError("already_locked", { current => $self-> {private_bz_tables_locked}, new => $list }); } else { $self->do('LOCK TABLE ' . $list); $self->{private_bz_tables_locked} = $list; } } bz_lock_tables (can i call it 'blt'?) appears to be invoked in places by buglist.cgi and query.cgi. my bugzilla instance is a mixture of myisam an innodb. should i be worried about blt? shouldn't the locking rules for innodb be very different to those for myisam? especially when reading, as opposed to writing. given we LOCK TABLE.$list, what does $list consist of? everything we're SELECTing? thanks /ferg -- fergus sullivan | yahoo bugzilla admin | fergus at yahoo-inc.com | o. 408.349.6807 | m. 408.xxx.xxxx From justdave at bugzilla.org Sun Dec 24 06:52:46 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 01:52:46 -0500 Subject: bz_lock_tables - how much, how often? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <458E23BE.2010504@bugzilla.org> Fergus Sullivan wrote on 12/21/06 3:27 AM: > i've noticed mysql.pm (2.22) includes the following code: > my bugzilla instance is a mixture of myisam an innodb. Bugzilla 2.22 was not written with InnoDB in mind. Your tables should all be myISAM or you're probably asking for trouble. That said, there's been some debate about switching things to InnoDB, and if that happens it'll probably be for 3.2 or so. -- Dave Miller http://www.justdave.net/ System Administrator, Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.bugzilla.org/ From justdave at bugzilla.org Sat Dec 30 10:35:53 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 05:35:53 -0500 Subject: Bugzilla prereqs now in rpmforge Message-ID: <45964109.7000705@bugzilla.org> As of this last week, all of the prereqs for Bugzilla 3.0 are now packaged in rpmforge (dag/dries) for the benefit of anyone installing it on RHEL or Fedora. The HTML::Parser perl module will still have to be installed manually on RHEL4, because RHN ships it, but ships and older version of it than we require (and *usually* rpmforge tries to avoid upgrading stuff RH actually supports). Anyone know the reason we require 3.40? If it's a compelling reason we might convince RedHat to update theirs in RHEL4U5 or something. -- Dave Miller http://www.justdave.net/ System Administrator, Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.bugzilla.org/ From gerv at mozilla.org Sat Dec 30 11:30:25 2006 From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 11:30:25 +0000 Subject: Bugzilla prereqs now in rpmforge In-Reply-To: <45964109.7000705@bugzilla.org> References: <45964109.7000705@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <45964DD1.5040700@mozilla.org> David Miller wrote: > As of this last week, all of the prereqs for Bugzilla 3.0 are now > packaged in rpmforge (dag/dries) for the benefit of anyone installing it > on RHEL or Fedora. Is this fact noted in the Bugzilla Guide? :-) Gerv From mkanat at bugzilla.org Sat Dec 30 21:29:13 2006 From: mkanat at bugzilla.org (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 13:29:13 -0800 Subject: Bugzilla prereqs now in rpmforge In-Reply-To: <45964109.7000705@bugzilla.org> References: <45964109.7000705@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <20061230212914.2318D18242@help.trusthosting.net> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 05:35:53 -0500 David Miller wrote: > Anyone know the reason we require 3.40? For UTF-8 support. Earlier versions don't work right with UTF-8 strings. -Max From justdave at bugzilla.org Sun Dec 31 03:17:47 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 22:17:47 -0500 Subject: Bugzilla prereqs now in rpmforge In-Reply-To: <20061230212914.2318D18242@help.trusthosting.net> References: <45964109.7000705@bugzilla.org> <20061230212914.2318D18242@help.trusthosting.net> Message-ID: <45972BDB.4080401@bugzilla.org> Max Kanat-Alexander wrote on 12/30/06 4:29 PM: > On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 05:35:53 -0500 David Miller > wrote: >> Anyone know the reason we require 3.40? > > For UTF-8 support. Earlier versions don't work right with UTF-8 > strings. ------8<------ Make utf8_mode only available on perl-5.8 or better. It produced garbage with older versions of perl. ------8<------ So does that mean the older versions are safe as long as you're on Perl 5.8 or newer? Don't we require Perl 5.8 now anyway? -- Dave Miller http://www.justdave.net/ System Administrator, Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.bugzilla.org/