From olav at bkor.dhs.org Tue Jan 3 17:08:11 2006 From: olav at bkor.dhs.org (Olav Vitters) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 18:08:11 +0100 Subject: Bug 119524 has landed on tip -- run checksetup.pl after cvs update Message-ID: <20060103170811.GA24574@bkor.dhs.org> This bug changes the logincookies table (no more integer as cookie). You need to run checksetup.pl after updating from CVS. See also https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119524 -- Regards, Olav From justdave at bugzilla.org Tue Jan 3 22:07:08 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 17:07:08 -0500 Subject: Bug 119524 has landed on tip -- run checksetup.pl after cvs update In-Reply-To: <20060103170811.GA24574@bkor.dhs.org> References: <20060103170811.GA24574@bkor.dhs.org> Message-ID: <43BAF58C.1050209@bugzilla.org> Olav Vitters wrote on 1/3/06 12:08 PM: > This bug changes the logincookies table (no more integer as cookie). You > need to run checksetup.pl after updating from CVS. > See also https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119524 As a point of reminder (as the documentation also says) you should get into the habit of always running checksetup.pl after a cvs update. :) -- 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 mkanat at bugzilla.org Wed Jan 4 01:38:11 2006 From: mkanat at bugzilla.org (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 17:38:11 -0800 Subject: Custom Fields: Help Test! Message-ID: <1136338691.3667.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> So, Custom Fields are just about to start being ready to go into Bugzilla! We just need some help testing out the code. It's pretty simple and basic, I just wanted somebody to do some testing on it: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=287325 Anybody can test it, even if you're not a reviewer. Just put a comment in the bug what/how you tested it, and what the results were. -Max -- http://www.everythingsolved.com/ Competent, Friendly Bugzilla Services. And Everything Else, too. From mkanat at bugzilla.org Tue Jan 10 20:33:55 2006 From: mkanat at bugzilla.org (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:33:55 -0800 Subject: 2.22rc1 Message-ID: <1136925236.3203.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> So, since bug 285614 is now sitting in the approval queue, instead of 2.21.2, we're going to be releasing 2.22rc1. There are no 2.22 blockers left, so this only makes sense. I understand that it will delay the QA process by some additional time; I'm okay with that. Also, once we release 2.22rc1 we will branch and the trunk will be open for development again. :-) I'd like to congratulate everybody -- this is our first RC with no remaining blockers in a *long* time. We may find a few more blockers during the RC cycle, but for now things look great. :-) -Max -- http://www.everythingsolved.com/ Competent, Friendly Bugzilla Services. And Everything Else, too. From dcalvert at AllianceBankNA.com Tue Jan 10 22:03:42 2006 From: dcalvert at AllianceBankNA.com (Calvert, Douglas) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:03:42 -0500 Subject: 2.22rc1 Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > > I'd like to congratulate everybody -- this is our first > RC with no remaining blockers in a *long* time. We may find a > few more blockers during the RC cycle, but for now things > look great. :-) > I would like to thank all the developers for bugzilla, blockers or no blockers. Things look great... :) From julien.beti at free.fr Tue Jan 10 23:01:32 2006 From: julien.beti at free.fr (Julien BETI) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 00:01:32 +0100 Subject: Bugzilla related little project and e-mail notification Message-ID: <43C43CCC.8000707@free.fr> Hello, Few weeks ago, I started a little java-web-based tool in order to integrate Bugzilla with Planner and to generate reports (See "Jujunie Integration" project on http://www.jujunie.com). The main working things are the integration of Imendio Planner with Bugzilla 2.20 with update of the percentage complete in Planner using the time tracking information of Bugzilla, and update of the Bugzilla deadline using the calculated end date in Planner. There is also one reports on hours worked. You can see the "TODO" part of the documentation for incomming functionalities. I have a little question to improve my project. After updating the Bugzilla database with new deadlines, I'm calling the sanitycheck, section rescan unsend mail, in order to make Bugzilla sends the e-mails notifying the changes. But in your script, there is a delay in order to not send e-mails if the change is more recent than 30 minutes ago. Since I'd like to propose a patch to add a parameter to define this delay (and set it to 0 in my case :p), and in order to avoid regressions, I'd like to know why this delay has been introduced? Your answer will be also useful for the CruiseControl BugzillaPublisher plugin (developed by Nanthrax: http://buildprocess.sourceforge.net/bugzillapublisher.html) where I'd like to porpose a patch to add the "e-mail notification" also. Thanks, Julien BETI. -- Motofix. La route est longue, mais la voie est libre... From luis.villa at gmail.com Wed Jan 11 00:10:07 2006 From: luis.villa at gmail.com (Luis Villa) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:10:07 -0500 Subject: 2.22rc1 In-Reply-To: <1136925236.3203.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1136925236.3203.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <2cb10c440601101610t2a39ad3ep7658fb86e42bd3bc@mail.gmail.com> On 1/10/06, Max Kanat-Alexander wrote: > So, since bug 285614 is now sitting in the approval queue, instead of > 2.21.2, we're going to be releasing 2.22rc1. There are no 2.22 blockers > left, so this only makes sense. > > I understand that it will delay the QA process by some additional time; > I'm okay with that. > > Also, once we release 2.22rc1 we will branch and the trunk will be open > for development again. :-) > > I'd like to congratulate everybody -- this is our first RC with no > remaining blockers in a *long* time. We may find a few more blockers > during the RC cycle, but for now things look great. :-) This is great to hear. For what it is worth, it is a lot easier for linux packagers if the actual version number is something like 2.21.90 (release candidate 1)- i.e., something that you can do an actual numeric comparison on. Luis P.S. GNOME just upgraded to 2.20 (albeit plus a lot of patches ;) and people are very, very pleased so far. Congrats and thanks... From vianney.lecroart at f4-group.com Wed Jan 11 08:07:23 2006 From: vianney.lecroart at f4-group.com (Vianney Lecroart) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:07:23 +0100 Subject: {Spam?} Resolved/FIXED a bug with a http request Message-ID: <43C4BCBB.8000706@f4-group.com> Hello, I have a bugid and I would like to Resolved/FIXED this bug with an http request. I tried to call process_bug.cgi but it requires too much parameters (for example the summary that I don't have access to). Is there easier way to do that? Regards, Vianney Lecroart From bzorg-ml at rsz.jp Wed Jan 11 11:49:49 2006 From: bzorg-ml at rsz.jp (bzorg-ml at rsz.jp) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:49:49 +0900 Subject: Resolved/FIXED a bug with a http request In-Reply-To: <43C4BCBB.8000706@f4-group.com> References: <43C4BCBB.8000706@f4-group.com> Message-ID: <200601111149.k0BBnqwH029869@sinclair.syndicomm.com> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:07:23 +0100 Vianney Lecroart wrote > I have a bugid and I would like to Resolved/FIXED this bug with an http > request. I tried to call process_bug.cgi but it requires too much > parameters (for example the summary that I don't have access to). > Is there easier way to do that? why? ask assignee or someone or admin to give you that priv, then just use show_bug.cgi. anyway this isn't a support place, see http://www.bugzilla.org/support/ -- victory From myk at mozilla.org Wed Jan 11 19:32:00 2006 From: myk at mozilla.org (Myk Melez) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:32:00 -0800 Subject: Resolved/FIXED a bug with a http request In-Reply-To: <200601111149.k0BBnqwH029869@sinclair.syndicomm.com> References: <43C4BCBB.8000706@f4-group.com> <200601111149.k0BBnqwH029869@sinclair.syndicomm.com> Message-ID: <43C55D30.1070804@mozilla.org> bzorg-ml at rsz.jp wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:07:23 +0100 > Vianney Lecroart wrote > > >> I have a bugid and I would like to Resolved/FIXED this bug with an http >> request. I tried to call process_bug.cgi but it requires too much >> parameters (for example the summary that I don't have access to). >> Is there easier way to do that? >> > > why? > ask assignee or someone or admin to give you that priv, > then just use show_bug.cgi. > Presumably Vianney is looking for a way to programmatically resolve bugs. > anyway this isn't a support place, see http://www.bugzilla.org/support/ > Perhaps, although if it's a question about programmatic access to Bugzilla's APIs, it might be considered something of a development question, even if it's not about the development of Bugzilla proper. In any case, it isn't trivial, since process_bug.cgi expects requesters to submit many fields of information about the bug; it isn't satisfied to be given merely the information being changed. The change multiple bugs form works around this by submitting a special "is not being changed" value for fields not being modified. You may be able to do the same. -myk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justdave at bugzilla.org Wed Jan 11 20:27:02 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:27:02 -0500 Subject: {Spam?} Resolved/FIXED a bug with a http request In-Reply-To: <43C4BCBB.8000706@f4-group.com> References: <43C4BCBB.8000706@f4-group.com> Message-ID: <43C56A16.70909@bugzilla.org> Vianney Lecroart wrote on 1/11/06 3:07 AM: > I have a bugid and I would like to Resolved/FIXED this bug with an http > request. I tried to call process_bug.cgi but it requires too much > parameters (for example the summary that I don't have access to). > Is there easier way to do that? Look in the contrib directory for bugzilla-submit. This is a python script which submits bugs this way. There's a corresponding bugzilla-change script with the same API that probably does exactly what you're looking for that hasn't been checked in yet. It's on https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248203 -- 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 Jan 11 20:33:41 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:33:41 -0500 Subject: Bugzilla related little project and e-mail notification In-Reply-To: <43C43CCC.8000707@free.fr> References: <43C43CCC.8000707@free.fr> Message-ID: <43C56BA5.4080501@bugzilla.org> Julien BETI wrote on 1/10/06 6:01 PM: > I have a little question to improve my project. After updating the > Bugzilla database with new deadlines, I'm calling the sanitycheck, > section rescan unsend mail, in order to make Bugzilla sends the e-mails > notifying the changes. But in your script, there is a delay in order to > not send e-mails if the change is more recent than 30 minutes ago. Since > I'd like to propose a patch to add a parameter to define this delay (and > set it to 0 in my case :p), and in order to avoid regressions, I'd like > to know why this delay has been introduced? Your answer will be also > useful for the CruiseControl BugzillaPublisher plugin (developed by > Nanthrax: http://buildprocess.sourceforge.net/bugzillapublisher.html) > where I'd like to porpose a patch to add the "e-mail notification" also. There's a "sendbugmail.pl" script which probably is a better match for what you're looking for. It takes the bug number on the command line, and sends any unsent mail for that specific bug. Assuming you know which bugs you're changing that would probably be a safer route to go. Also, there is a "sendunsentbugmail.pl" script (in contrib I think) which does exactly what the sanitycheck process does, but doesn't have the overhead of running everything else in sanitycheck as well (and also does it from the command line). That script should be pretty easy to modify to remove the 30 minute exception if you really need to run it across the board instead of on specific 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 dcalvert at AllianceBankNA.com Thu Jan 12 23:02:35 2006 From: dcalvert at AllianceBankNA.com (Calvert, Douglas) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:02:35 -0500 Subject: Resolved/FIXED a bug with a http request Message-ID: The real magic bullet discussion is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=224577 Bugzilla could use a web services interface "Having a web services interface to Bugzilla would be a nifty tool to allow remote users to enter bugs via a client-side, native interface. The current method used by tools like Bugxula works, but doesn't provide the interface stability that a web service would and requires a bit of server-side setup to generate the .rss files required for use." -- Douglas F. Calvert Information Security Officer, Alliance Bank NA Phone: 315.475.7770 / Cell: 315.952.8530 / Fax: 315.475.0870 *********************************************************************** Confidentiality Notice: This email contains privileged and confidential information. Any dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited without prior consent. *********************************************************************** ________________________________ From: developers-owner at bugzilla.org [mailto:developers-owner at bugzilla.org] On Behalf Of Myk Melez Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 2:32 PM To: developers at bugzilla.org Cc: Vianney Lecroart Subject: Re: Resolved/FIXED a bug with a http request bzorg-ml at rsz.jp wrote: On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:07:23 +0100 Vianney Lecroart wrote I have a bugid and I would like to Resolved/FIXED this bug with an http request. I tried to call process_bug.cgi but it requires too much parameters (for example the summary that I don't have access to). Is there easier way to do that? why? ask assignee or someone or admin to give you that priv, then just use show_bug.cgi. Presumably Vianney is looking for a way to programmatically resolve bugs. anyway this isn't a support place, see http://www.bugzilla.org/support/ Perhaps, although if it's a question about programmatic access to Bugzilla's APIs, it might be considered something of a development question, even if it's not about the development of Bugzilla proper. In any case, it isn't trivial, since process_bug.cgi expects requesters to submit many fields of information about the bug; it isn't satisfied to be given merely the information being changed. The change multiple bugs form works around this by submitting a special "is not being changed" value for fields not being modified. You may be able to do the same. -myk From CDaniell at realm.com Thu Jan 12 23:22:27 2006 From: CDaniell at realm.com (Casey Daniell) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:22:27 -0600 Subject: Resolved/FIXED a bug with a http request Message-ID: <251BDD141C490545813A304E835228760132AB@dalmail01.realpulse.com> While this isn't quite what your wanting, it might suffice. http://deskzilla.com/news/2005-10-05.html Its a privately developed front-end for bugzilla. -----Original Message----- From: developers-owner at bugzilla.org [mailto:developers-owner at bugzilla.org]On Behalf Of Calvert, Douglas Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:03 PM To: developers at bugzilla.org Subject: Re: Resolved/FIXED a bug with a http request The real magic bullet discussion is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=224577 Bugzilla could use a web services interface "Having a web services interface to Bugzilla would be a nifty tool to allow remote users to enter bugs via a client-side, native interface. The current method used by tools like Bugxula works, but doesn't provide the interface stability that a web service would and requires a bit of server-side setup to generate the .rss files required for use." -- Douglas F. Calvert Information Security Officer, Alliance Bank NA Phone: 315.475.7770 / Cell: 315.952.8530 / Fax: 315.475.0870 *********************************************************************** Confidentiality Notice: This email contains privileged and confidential information. Any dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited without prior consent. *********************************************************************** ________________________________ From: developers-owner at bugzilla.org [mailto:developers-owner at bugzilla.org] On Behalf Of Myk Melez Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 2:32 PM To: developers at bugzilla.org Cc: Vianney Lecroart Subject: Re: Resolved/FIXED a bug with a http request bzorg-ml at rsz.jp wrote: On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:07:23 +0100 Vianney Lecroart wrote I have a bugid and I would like to Resolved/FIXED this bug with an http request. I tried to call process_bug.cgi but it requires too much parameters (for example the summary that I don't have access to). Is there easier way to do that? why? ask assignee or someone or admin to give you that priv, then just use show_bug.cgi. Presumably Vianney is looking for a way to programmatically resolve bugs. anyway this isn't a support place, see http://www.bugzilla.org/support/ Perhaps, although if it's a question about programmatic access to Bugzilla's APIs, it might be considered something of a development question, even if it's not about the development of Bugzilla proper. In any case, it isn't trivial, since process_bug.cgi expects requesters to submit many fields of information about the bug; it isn't satisfied to be given merely the information being changed. The change multiple bugs form works around this by submitting a special "is not being changed" value for fields not being modified. You may be able to do the same. -myk - To view or change your list settings, click here: NOTICE: This communication contains information which is confidential to Realm Business Solutions, Inc. or its subsidiary ("Realm"). If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please delete and destroy all copies. If you are the intended recipient of this communication, you should not copy, disclose or distribute this communication without Realm's authority. Any views expressed in this communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be Realm's views. Except as required by law, Realm does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free of errors, harmful code, interception or interference. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mkanat at bugzilla.org Thu Jan 12 23:44:57 2006 From: mkanat at bugzilla.org (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 15:44:57 -0800 Subject: Resolved/FIXED a bug with a http request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1137109497.5883.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 18:02 -0500, Calvert, Douglas wrote: > The real magic bullet discussion is > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=224577 > Bugzilla could use a web services interface Yeah, that's one of our major goals for Bugzilla. That's one of those things that I intend to do myself eventually, but if anybody else wants to work on it I'd be quite happy to review it. There's already some code there that I've reviewed and I think needs an update. Actually, jbailey told me he has a newer version, but he hasn't posted it. -Max -- http://www.everythingsolved.com/ Competent, Friendly Bugzilla Services. And Everything Else, too. From dixson_zhou at suminet-sh.com Fri Jan 13 03:48:46 2006 From: dixson_zhou at suminet-sh.com (Dixson Zhou) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:48:46 +0800 Subject: A question about bugzilla with glibc In-Reply-To: <1137109497.5883.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1137109497.5883.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <43C7231E.1040104@suminet-sh.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mkanat at bugzilla.org Fri Jan 13 06:38:08 2006 From: mkanat at bugzilla.org (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 22:38:08 -0800 Subject: A question about bugzilla with glibc In-Reply-To: <43C7231E.1040104@suminet-sh.com> References: <1137109497.5883.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43C7231E.1040104@suminet-sh.com> Message-ID: <1137134288.3165.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 11:48 +0800, Dixson Zhou wrote: > ow I have a problem with the Bugzilla when I updated from bugzilla > from 2.18 to 2.20 on my RedHat AS4. > When I second time to run the checksetup.pl, there is an error when > initializing the bz_schema table. The error is > > ******glibc detected ******* double free or corruption ******* 0xXXXXXX It's probably a bug in RHEL. However, if you're using a development version of DBD::mysql, don't do that. A development version is any version with an underscore (the "_" character) in the version number. -Max -- http://www.everythingsolved.com/ Competent, Friendly Bugzilla Services. And Everything Else, too. From justdave at bugzilla.org Wed Jan 18 21:33:44 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:33:44 -0500 Subject: backporting minor UI changes to keep QA scripts working Message-ID: <43CEB438.8030201@bugzilla.org> The QA guys are wanting to backport a bunch of minor UI changes from 2.22 to 2.20 to make it easier to share Selenium (UI testing) scripts between the two versions. There's some good reasons for this: 1) It's really hard to maintain separate copies of the scripts for each version of Bugzilla, and remembering to make the same changes to each script when you fix a problem with them. 2) Running the same script makes it easier to detect regressions from one version to the next. 3) Lots of time savings for QA people, mostly because of #1 However, I don't really like the idea, but I figured I'd get a little bit of discussion on it before I outright say no. Here's my reasons: 1) Most of the time when we make UI changes on a stable branch a localizer has to match the change on their localization pack. (but it's been pointed out to me that we've already done this before for missing whitespace and so forth) 2) It's a slippery slope to go down. Bugzilla is continually evolving, and this problem isn't going to go away. The same problem will happen again with 2.24 because of UI changes. Features are going to change, too. Every version is going to break scripts that we used with the previous version... How many branches do we continue to backport UI changes to? Anyone have thoughts on the matter, in either direction? As much as I want to make life easy for the QA guys (they've been doing an awesome job, and I really don't want them to stop or get burned out on it) I'm leaning very heavily on the No side, so it'll take some convincing. -- 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 Wed Jan 18 21:49:58 2006 From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:49:58 +0000 Subject: backporting minor UI changes to keep QA scripts working In-Reply-To: <43CEB438.8030201@bugzilla.org> References: <43CEB438.8030201@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <43CEB806.9050307@mozilla.org> David Miller wrote: > 2) It's a slippery slope to go down. Bugzilla is continually evolving, > and this problem isn't going to go away. The same problem will happen > again with 2.24 because of UI changes. Features are going to change, > too. Every version is going to break scripts that we used with the > previous version... How many branches do we continue to backport UI > changes to? > > Anyone have thoughts on the matter, in either direction? It seems to me that the ideal thing is for the test scripts to freeze along with the codebase. So we don't make any changes to them once the code and UI are frozen, so they continue to match that code and that UI. This means that, if you write a spiffy new test script to test something that's never been tested before, you'll probably just write it for the trunk. That's fine - Bugzilla's continually moving forward. And you can use the time you would have spent backporting it to write another cool test script. That's the ideal. Now, I know that we are just getting going with test scripts, and that we have to support 3 versions of Bugzilla and it would be great to have test scripts to cover them all. And so, there's pressure to change the stable versions so our initial test scripts can have wide coverage. But frankly, why run newly-written test scripts against 2.20? If you find bugs, are we going to fix them? Probably not, because it's a stable branch. What is the point of test scripts? 1) To prevent regressions during development before freeze 2) To prevent regressions during security fixing after freeze 1) doesn't apply to 2.20. OK, they might be useful for 2), but we've done manual testing of security fixes for ages now, and it won't hurt us to have to keep going a bit longer. Gerv From LpSolit at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 22:11:42 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCdWNsaW4=?=) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:11:42 +0100 Subject: backporting minor UI changes to keep QA scripts working In-Reply-To: <43CEB806.9050307@mozilla.org> References: <43CEB438.8030201@bugzilla.org> <43CEB806.9050307@mozilla.org> Message-ID: <43CEBD1E.8090807@gmail.com> > This means that, if you write a spiffy new test script to test something > that's never been tested before, you'll probably just write it for the > trunk. That's fine - Bugzilla's continually moving forward. And you can > use the time you would have spent backporting it to write another cool > test script. Very funny. We are writing these tests for the first time, so we could hardly freeze together with the branch. What you say is to not test 2.20, at least using automated tests. So why wasting our time doing QA tests on branches? Come on, let's release them tomorrow, untested. > have wide coverage. But frankly, why run newly-written test scripts > against 2.20? If you find bugs, are we going to fix them? Probably not, > because it's a stable branch. 2.20 has been released ~ 3 months ago and will live for at least 2 years. Everytime we want a new 2.20.x release, we will have to test it to make sure nothing is broken. And without these tests, this means doing the work manually again and again. Thanks a lot, but the QA team already did 3 such releases since July and we are very tired of doing this again and again... and it's very time consuming and require too many people (and I never got replies when asking help for QA stuff). > What is the point of test scripts? > 1) To prevent regressions during development before freeze > 2) To prevent regressions during security fixing after freeze > > 1) doesn't apply to 2.20. OK, they might be useful for 2), but we've > done manual testing of security fixes for ages now, and it won't hurt us > to have to keep going a bit longer. Wrong! Also to prevent regressions due to "normal" fixes on branches. The reason we created the QA team last summer was because two releases were broken and we had to do emergency releases in both cases. None of these broken releases was based on tip, but both were based on branches (2.16.9 and 2.18.2 IIRC). And doing testing manually *does* hurt actually. It requires time and people. AFAIK, we are not a lot of people taking care of testing branches. If you are happy with manual testing, find someone else. I'm trying to bring QA stuff out of the stone age, and for this, I require some tiny UI changes, read my previous message. If that's too much for you, by "freezing" the branch, I didn't know you were talking about zero Kelvin! LpSolit From LpSolit at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 21:51:10 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCdWNsaW4=?=) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:51:10 +0100 Subject: backporting minor UI changes to keep QA scripts working In-Reply-To: <43CEB438.8030201@bugzilla.org> References: <43CEB438.8030201@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <43CEB84E.7020703@gmail.com> > 2) It's a slippery slope to go down. Bugzilla is continually evolving, > and this problem isn't going to go away. The same problem will happen > again with 2.24 because of UI changes. Features are going to change, > too. Every version is going to break scripts that we used with the > previous version... How many branches do we continue to backport UI > changes to? I'm not talking about new features. I'm talking about typos of the form product -> Product. Selenium is case sensitive, so I have to write regexp of the form /(P|p)roduct/ in many places, and some Selenium commands do not accept regexp, so I would have to write |if (version == 2.20) then "product" else "Product" end| in as many places. That's ridiculous for this kind of tiny UI changes (actually, I'm only complaining about the UI to admin products). I wasted hours taking care as much as possible of this kind of typo changes (and having ugly scripts with regexp), but now I'm really tired of this. LpSolit From gerv at mozilla.org Thu Jan 19 00:15:08 2006 From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:15:08 +0000 Subject: backporting minor UI changes to keep QA scripts working In-Reply-To: <43CEB84E.7020703@gmail.com> References: <43CEB438.8030201@bugzilla.org> <43CEB84E.7020703@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43CEDA0C.6080305@mozilla.org> Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote: > I'm not talking about new features. I'm talking about typos of the form > product -> Product. Selenium is case sensitive, so I have to write > regexp of the form /(P|p)roduct/ in many places, and some Selenium > commands do not accept regexp, so I would have to write |if (version == > 2.20) then "product" else "Product" end| in as many places. That's > ridiculous for this kind of tiny UI changes (actually, I'm only > complaining about the UI to admin products). Perhaps we could set a bar by permitting changes to templates which involve only outputted text, and not HTML markup or TT code? This might try and balance the requirements of Selenium with the requirement for stability. Gerv From gerv at mozilla.org Thu Jan 19 00:18:07 2006 From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:18:07 +0000 Subject: backporting minor UI changes to keep QA scripts working In-Reply-To: <43CEBD1E.8090807@gmail.com> References: <43CEB438.8030201@bugzilla.org> <43CEB806.9050307@mozilla.org> <43CEBD1E.8090807@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43CEDABF.30608@mozilla.org> Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote: >> This means that, if you write a spiffy new test script to test something >> that's never been tested before, you'll probably just write it for the >> trunk. That's fine - Bugzilla's continually moving forward. And you can >> use the time you would have spent backporting it to write another cool >> test script. > > Very funny. We are writing these tests for the first time, so we could > hardly freeze together with the branch. What you say is to not test > 2.20, at least using automated tests. That was my suggestion. It may turn out not to be practical, for the very good reasons you've just given. > 2.20 has been released ~ 3 months ago and will live for at least 2 > years. Everytime we want a new 2.20.x release, we will have to test it > to make sure nothing is broken. And without these tests, this means > doing the work manually again and again. Thanks a lot, but the QA team > already did 3 such releases since July and we are very tired of doing > this again and again... and it's very time consuming and require too > many people (and I never got replies when asking help for QA stuff). I understand entirely that it's unfair to load you down unnecessarily. You are doing a great job. How much changes are we actually making between 2.20.x releases? Are we just doing security fixes, or is there still development going on? > I'm trying to bring QA stuff out of the stone age, and for this, I > require some tiny UI changes, read my previous message. If that's too > much for you, by "freezing" the branch, I didn't know you were talking > about zero Kelvin! I think perhaps I didn't understand the level of UI change you were talking about from Dave's original message. Sorry about that. Gerv From LpSolit at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 01:03:40 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCdWNsaW4=?=) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 02:03:40 +0100 Subject: backporting minor UI changes to keep QA scripts working In-Reply-To: <43CEDABF.30608@mozilla.org> References: <43CEB438.8030201@bugzilla.org> <43CEB806.9050307@mozilla.org> <43CEBD1E.8090807@gmail.com> <43CEDABF.30608@mozilla.org> Message-ID: <43CEE56C.7060209@gmail.com> > How much changes are we actually making between 2.20.x releases? Are we > just doing security fixes, or is there still development going on? Here, you can see all checkins made since 2.20 final: http://www.bugzilla.org/status/changes.html Click the link "2.20 -> today". The list is pretty long! Security fixes only is for the 2.18 branch. 2.20 still accepts usual bug fixes. Which is the reason why the list is so long. > I think perhaps I didn't understand the level of UI change you were > talking about from Dave's original message. Sorry about that. Yeah... I'm not going to change *any* word, except some lowercase <-> uppercase changes. I think the number of affected words can be counted with one hand only (from what I have seen so far). LpSolit From bzorg-ml at rsz.jp Thu Jan 19 01:50:22 2006 From: bzorg-ml at rsz.jp (bzorg-ml at rsz.jp) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:50:22 +0900 Subject: backporting minor UI changes to keep QA scripts working In-Reply-To: <43CEE56C.7060209@gmail.com> References: <43CEDABF.30608@mozilla.org> <43CEE56C.7060209@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200601190150.k0J1oP7W006337@sinclair.syndicomm.com> justdave wrote: > 1) Most of the time when we make UI changes on a stable branch a > localizer has to match the change on their localization pack. (but it's > been pointed out to me that we've already done this before for missing > whitespace and so forth) I'd like to say as a localizer, these UI changes don't waste time to check. :-D When we do update localization, anyway we have to see difference from diff files or cvs or released distri and pick up all changes to under template directory. Then at short notice we'll find whether the part of changes affect or not so minor changes doesn't affect so much time (it'll take less than a minute in this case). ;-) -- victory/_RSZ_ From mkanat at bugzilla.org Thu Jan 19 01:59:50 2006 From: mkanat at bugzilla.org (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:59:50 -0800 Subject: backporting minor UI changes to keep QA scripts working In-Reply-To: <43CEE56C.7060209@gmail.com> References: <43CEB438.8030201@bugzilla.org> <43CEB806.9050307@mozilla.org> <43CEBD1E.8090807@gmail.com> <43CEDABF.30608@mozilla.org> <43CEE56C.7060209@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1137635990.6175.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 02:03 +0100, Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote: > Yeah... I'm not going to change *any* word, except some lowercase <-> > uppercase changes. I think the number of affected words can be counted > with one hand only (from what I have seen so far). That sounds fine to me, at least. Anything that makes QA easier makes releases faster, and that makes me happy. We've already made significant template changes on the 2.20 branch for 2.20.1. A few more minor changes won't matter. -Max -- http://www.everythingsolved.com/ Competent, Friendly Bugzilla Services. And Everything Else, too. From justdave at bugzilla.org Thu Jan 19 02:31:12 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:31:12 -0500 Subject: backporting minor UI changes to keep QA scripts working In-Reply-To: <43CEDABF.30608@mozilla.org> References: <43CEB438.8030201@bugzilla.org> <43CEB806.9050307@mozilla.org> <43CEBD1E.8090807@gmail.com> <43CEDABF.30608@mozilla.org> Message-ID: <43CEF9F0.5030100@bugzilla.org> Gervase Markham wrote on 1/18/06 7:18 PM: > How much changes are we actually making between 2.20.x releases? Are we > just doing security fixes, or is there still development going on? Yeah, we haven't yet nailed down 2.20 for security-only, and there has actually been quite a few template changes as bugs have been discovered in 2.20, so if we're going to do this I guess now is a good time. once 2.22 releases, 2.20 would be security-only if we follow precedent. Let's go ahead and do it this once. :) -- 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 vladd at bugzilla.org Thu Jan 19 15:28:52 2006 From: vladd at bugzilla.org (Vlad Dascalu) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:28:52 +0200 Subject: backporting minor UI changes to keep QA scripts working In-Reply-To: <43CEB84E.7020703@gmail.com> References: <43CEB438.8030201@bugzilla.org> <43CEB84E.7020703@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43CFB034.9050301@bugzilla.org> Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote: > some Selenium commands do not accept regexp Probably we could also try to improve Selenium in this regard From LpSolit at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 15:40:45 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCdWNsaW4=?=) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:40:45 +0100 Subject: backporting minor UI changes to keep QA scripts working In-Reply-To: <43CFB034.9050301@bugzilla.org> References: <43CEB438.8030201@bugzilla.org> <43CEB84E.7020703@gmail.com> <43CFB034.9050301@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <43CFB2FD.1050906@gmail.com> > Probably we could also try to improve Selenium in this regard Except that Selenium is not our product. And so our control on it is pretty limited. ;) And Selenium guys are not in a hurry to update their product even when you make some valid requests. :( Anyway, the changes have been commited already, see bug 323967. From gerv at mozilla.org Mon Jan 23 12:52:52 2006 From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:52:52 +0000 Subject: Docs in Russian Message-ID: <43D4D1A4.60505@mozilla.org> Ooh, Bugzilla docs in Russian :-) http://lib.custis.ru/index.php/Bugzilla Gerv From dennis.melentyev at infopulse.com.ua Mon Jan 23 14:07:50 2006 From: dennis.melentyev at infopulse.com.ua (Dennis Melentyev) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:07:50 +0200 Subject: Docs in Russian In-Reply-To: <43D4D1A4.60505@mozilla.org> References: <43D4D1A4.60505@mozilla.org> Message-ID: <43D4E336.40309@infopulse.com.ua> Yep. Good work. But somewhat project-centric. Especialy in field of external tools connectivity/policies. But anyway, good subject coverage. Gervase Markham wrote: > Ooh, Bugzilla docs in Russian :-) > http://lib.custis.ru/index.php/Bugzilla > > Gerv > - > To view or change your list settings, click here: > From CDaniell at realm.com Mon Jan 23 17:49:06 2006 From: CDaniell at realm.com (Casey Daniell) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:49:06 -0600 Subject: Bugzilla Roadmap Out of Date Message-ID: <251BDD141C490545813A304E835228760132E7@dalmail01.realpulse.com> The bugzilla road map, http://www.bugzilla.org/status/roadmap.html, is out of date. Especially the section with the anticipated release dates of the upcoming releases. Is anyone going to update this page? I need to know when the next major release of Bugzilla will be made, or what date its roughly targeted for. Casey B. Daniell Realm Business Solutions, Inc. 13727 Noel Rd. Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75240 NOTICE: This communication contains information which is confidential to Realm Business Solutions, Inc. or its subsidiary ("Realm"). If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please delete and destroy all copies. If you are the intended recipient of this communication, you should not copy, disclose or distribute this communication without Realm's authority. Any views expressed in this communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be Realm's views. Except as required by law, Realm does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free of errors, harmful code, interception or interference. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LpSolit at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 17:57:32 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Buclin?=) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:57:32 +0100 Subject: Bugzilla Roadmap Out of Date In-Reply-To: <251BDD141C490545813A304E835228760132E7@dalmail01.realpulse.com> References: <251BDD141C490545813A304E835228760132E7@dalmail01.realpulse.com> Message-ID: <43D5190C.5060205@gmail.com> > The bugzilla road map, http://www.bugzilla.org/status/roadmap.html, is > out of date. Especially the section with the anticipated release dates > of the upcoming releases. Is anyone going to update this page? I need to > know when the next major release of Bugzilla will be made, or what date > its roughly targeted for. 2.20.1 and 2.22rc1 should be released next week. 2.22 final should come less than one month later (unless we find major regressions meanwhile). 2.24 should follow 6 months after the release of 2.22, i.e. in the second half of 2006. Fr?d?ric From LpSolit at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 10:02:54 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Buclin?=) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:02:54 +0100 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap Message-ID: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> Hi all! You will probably be interested by our new Bugzilla roadmap for the next 9 months. If everything goes well, we will release Bugzilla 3.0 (instead of Bugzilla 2.24) at the end of this year: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:Roadmap This roadmap will probably change a bit in the coming weeks, especially deadlines, but that's what we would like to see being done. Feel free to comment if I forgot something important in the list; I wrote it around midnight. :) Fr?d?ric Buclin From justdave at bugzilla.org Wed Jan 25 11:29:47 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 06:29:47 -0500 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap In-Reply-To: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> References: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43D7612B.2060708@bugzilla.org> Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote on 1/25/06 5:02 AM: > You will probably be interested by our new Bugzilla roadmap for the next > 9 months. If everything goes well, we will release Bugzilla 3.0 (instead > of Bugzilla 2.24) at the end of this year: > > http://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:Roadmap > > This roadmap will probably change a bit in the coming weeks, especially > deadlines, but that's what we would like to see being done. > > Feel free to comment if I forgot something important in the list; I > wrote it around midnight. :) I'd like to have an IRC meeting at some point to get some real-time discussion on the planning around this, too (this was kind of ad-hoc stuff last night as we thought of it), for people to knock out ideas some. Trying to find a time when lots of people can make it, is of course, the challenging part. Is weekends or weekdays better? Sometime in the next few days would be nice. -- 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 LpSolit at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 11:39:33 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCdWNsaW4=?=) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:39:33 +0100 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap In-Reply-To: <43D7612B.2060708@bugzilla.org> References: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> <43D7612B.2060708@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <43D76375.6000507@gmail.com> > course, the challenging part. Is weekends or weekdays better? Sometime > in the next few days would be nice. For me, evenings if on weekdays (European Time), else when you want on weekends (but avoid Fridays). Do you plan to have these IRC meetings on a weekly basis? LpSolit From justdave at bugzilla.org Wed Jan 25 12:12:01 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 07:12:01 -0500 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap In-Reply-To: <43D76375.6000507@gmail.com> References: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> <43D7612B.2060708@bugzilla.org> <43D76375.6000507@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43D76B11.1070609@bugzilla.org> Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote on 1/25/06 6:39 AM: >> course, the challenging part. Is weekends or weekdays better? Sometime >> in the next few days would be nice. > > For me, evenings if on weekdays (European Time), else when you want on > weekends (but avoid Fridays). > > Do you plan to have these IRC meetings on a weekly basis? that's probably not a bad idea... hope we can find a time that works good for a lot of people on a weekly basis :) (or maybe we can slide it around on a rotating schedule to let different people get there every so often) -- 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 Jan 25 12:10:45 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 07:10:45 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Future versions of DBI to require perl >= 5.8 Message-ID: FYI... ----- Begin Forwarded Text ----- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:03:22 +0000 From: Tim Bunce To: dbi-users at perl.org Subject: Future versions of DBI to require perl >= 5.8 FYI I'm planning on making the next release (1.51) be the last that officially supports perl 5.6. This is partly to make it easier to implement changes in future releases that improve performance with threaded perls. This will benefit ActiveState perl users, people using DBI with mod_perl2, and users O/S distributions that ship perl pre-built with threads enabled. Tim. ----- End Forwarded Text ----- -- Dave Miller Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.justdave.net/ http://www.bugzilla.org/ From LpSolit at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 13:45:45 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCdWNsaW4=?=) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:45:45 +0100 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap In-Reply-To: <43D76B11.1070609@bugzilla.org> References: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> <43D7612B.2060708@bugzilla.org> <43D76375.6000507@gmail.com> <43D76B11.1070609@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <43D78109.6020404@gmail.com> > that's probably not a bad idea... hope we can find a time that works > good for a lot of people on a weekly basis :) (or maybe we can slide it > around on a rotating schedule to let different people get there every so > often) A rotating schedule seems a good idea. I'm thinking about glob who is right under my feets: glob_work: what's your favorite time (in GMT)? LpSolit: 4am gmt 5am for me :( like i said, my timezone makes it tricky :) as long as it's infrequent, i can also do about 1pm to 2pm gmt means... 10pm for you? yeah... sure ;) That's just an example. ;) LpSolit From LpSolit at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 14:11:06 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCdWNsaW4=?=) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:11:06 +0100 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap In-Reply-To: <43D76B11.1070609@bugzilla.org> References: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> <43D7612B.2060708@bugzilla.org> <43D76375.6000507@gmail.com> <43D76B11.1070609@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <43D786FA.3020606@gmail.com> Hum... it seems that "right under my feet" is a bad translation from french and has another meaning in english. Sorry, glob. ;) LpSolit From kevin.benton at amd.com Wed Jan 25 16:23:15 2006 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Benton, Kevin) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 08:23:15 -0800 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) Message-ID: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> That would be after hours for me... I'm potentially available for such a meeting between 17:00 and 23:00 GMT... Considering the wide variety of time zones, I wonder if it doesn't make sense to have a number of meetings, once a month on a rotating basis, such as maybe the first Tuesday of the month, then we could have three or four meetings (one every 6-8 hours) that day giving us the ability to attend one that best suits our time needs. I would hope that someone would be willing to take notes and publish a summary for each... I would also hope that one person from each earlier meeting would commit to attending the next to pass on info. --- Kevin Benton Perl/Bugzilla Developer/Administrator, Perforce SCM Administrator Personal Computing Systems Group Advanced Micro Devices The opinions stated in this communication do not necessarily reflect the view of Advanced Micro Devices and have not been reviewed by management. This communication may contain sensitive and/or confidential and/or proprietary information. Distribution of such information is strictly prohibited without prior consent of Advanced Micro Devices. This communication is for the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, then destroy any remaining copies of this communication. > -----Original Message----- > From: developers-owner at bugzilla.org [mailto:developers-owner at bugzilla.org] > On Behalf Of Fr?d?ric Buclin > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:46 AM > To: developers at bugzilla.org > Subject: Re: New Bugzilla Roadmap > > > that's probably not a bad idea... hope we can find a time that works > > good for a lot of people on a weekly basis :) (or maybe we can slide it > > around on a rotating schedule to let different people get there every so > > often) > > A rotating schedule seems a good idea. I'm thinking about glob who is > right under my feets: > > glob_work: what's your favorite time (in GMT)? > LpSolit: 4am gmt > 5am for me :( > like i said, my timezone makes it tricky :) > as long as it's infrequent, i can also do about 1pm to 2pm gmt > means... 10pm for you? yeah... sure ;) > > > That's just an example. ;) > > LpSolit > - > To view or change your list settings, click here: > From LpSolit at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 16:45:04 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Buclin?=) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:45:04 +0100 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> Message-ID: <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> > I'm potentially available for such a meeting between 17:00 and 23:00 GMT... That would be great for me too. > > Considering the wide variety of time zones, I wonder if it doesn't make sense to have a number of meetings, once a month on a rotating basis, such as maybe the first Tuesday of the month, then we could have three or four meetings (one every 6-8 hours) that day giving us the ability to attend one that best suits our time needs. I would hope that someone would be willing to take notes and publish a summary for each... I would also hope that one person from each earlier meeting would commit to attending the next to pass on info. I'm not sure that having 3-4 meetings the same day is a good idea. We should probably choose a day of the week/hour which is the most convenient for everyone, and for those who cannot attend, we could probably have logbot in the channel (#bugzilla-meeting or something like that) which records everything and we could ask glob if he agrees to make the log file available using his website, for instance. With logbot or not, one of us should also write a small report which could be sent to developers@ or be posted somewhere on bugzilla.org. LpSolit From mkanat at bugzilla.org Wed Jan 25 21:03:57 2006 From: mkanat at bugzilla.org (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:03:57 -0800 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1138223037.3093.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:45 +0100, Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote: > > I'm potentially available for such a meeting between 17:00 and 23:00 GMT... > > That would be great for me too. And that would probably work for me too. -Max -- http://www.everythingsolved.com/ Competent, Friendly Bugzilla Services. And Everything Else, too. From luis.villa at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 22:52:39 2006 From: luis.villa at gmail.com (Luis Villa) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:52:39 -0500 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> I strongly suggest Ubuntu's solution, which is pick a time/date, do the meeting (with logging, etc.) then do it six hours later the next week, six hour later the next week, so on (all on the same day) so that every four weeks someone is really, badly hosed, but everyone gets hosed equally. Luis On 1/25/06, Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote: > > I'm potentially available for such a meeting between 17:00 and 23:00 GMT... > > That would be great for me too. > > > > > > Considering the wide variety of time zones, I wonder if it doesn't make sense to have a number of meetings, once a month on a rotating basis, such as maybe the first Tuesday of the month, then we could have three or four meetings (one every 6-8 hours) that day giving us the ability to attend one that best suits our time needs. I would hope that someone would be willing to take notes and publish a summary for each... I would also hope that one person from each earlier meeting would commit to attending the next to pass on info. > > I'm not sure that having 3-4 meetings the same day is a good idea. We > should probably choose a day of the week/hour which is the most > convenient for everyone, and for those who cannot attend, we could > probably have logbot in the channel (#bugzilla-meeting or something like > that) which records everything and we could ask glob if he agrees to > make the log file available using his website, for instance. > > With logbot or not, one of us should also write a small report which > could be sent to developers@ or be posted somewhere on bugzilla.org. > > > LpSolit > - > To view or change your list settings, click here: > > From LpSolit at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 23:01:15 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Buclin?=) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:01:15 +0100 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43D8033B.8020802@gmail.com> > I strongly suggest Ubuntu's solution, which is pick a time/date, do > the meeting (with logging, etc.) then do it six hours later the next > week, six hour later the next week, so on (all on the same day) so > that every four weeks someone is really, badly hosed, but everyone > gets hosed equally. Hrm... this means I could attend only once every four weeks, max twice. That's pretty bad. :-/ From mkanat at bugzilla.org Thu Jan 26 00:43:37 2006 From: mkanat at bugzilla.org (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:43:37 -0800 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1138236218.3994.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:52 -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > I strongly suggest Ubuntu's solution, which is pick a time/date, do > the meeting (with logging, etc.) then do it six hours later the next > week, six hour later the next week, so on (all on the same day) so > that every four weeks someone is really, badly hosed, but everyone > gets hosed equally. We could also have a proxy system. A developer who can't attend can pick a developer who they trust and who is somewhat like-minded. The non-attending developer can tell their friend "I'd like you to take up these things for me, if you would..." and the attending developer can bring up those issues. -Max -- http://www.everythingsolved.com/ Competent, Friendly Bugzilla Services. And Everything Else, too. From LpSolit at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 01:56:24 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCdWNsaW4=?=) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:56:24 +0100 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <1138236218.3994.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> <1138236218.3994.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <43D82C48.7000007@gmail.com> If 17:00 - 23:00 GMT is fine for most of you (nobody is against?), I would suggest to meet somewhere between Monday and Wednesday. I think we have more free time at the beginning of weeks than at the end. Comments? We could start next week. ;) LpSolit From stu at asyn.com Thu Jan 26 13:51:21 2006 From: stu at asyn.com (Stuart Donaldson) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 05:51:21 -0800 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap In-Reply-To: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> References: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43D8D3D9.2080600@asyn.com> So with an end of year release, has development gone away from the earlier goal of shorter release cycles? I thought the goal was every 6 months or so, with features being managed in order to hit the window... -Stuart- Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote: > Hi all! > > You will probably be interested by our new Bugzilla roadmap for the > next 9 months. If everything goes well, we will release Bugzilla 3.0 > (instead of Bugzilla 2.24) at the end of this year: > > http://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:Roadmap > > This roadmap will probably change a bit in the coming weeks, > especially deadlines, but that's what we would like to see being done. > > Feel free to comment if I forgot something important in the list; I > wrote it around midnight. :) > > > Fr?d?ric Buclin > - > To view or change your list settings, click here: > From bugzilla at glob.com.au Thu Jan 26 13:56:33 2006 From: bugzilla at glob.com.au (byron jones) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:56:33 +0800 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <43D82C48.7000007@gmail.com> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> <1138236218.3994.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43D82C48.7000007@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060126135633.GA9017@sweep.bur.st> > If 17:00 - 23:00 GMT is fine for most of you (nobody is against?), i guess i'll have to point logbot at the channel and read the logs (gmt+8) :) -b -- begin-base64 644 signature.gif R0lGODlhbQAHAIAAAABPo////ywAAAAAbQAHAAACfAxuGAnch+Bibkn7FL1p XgVl4Ig1jjlZRoqybgun2Cur5uOunq7u/Ipq7WIyIc7XG9JquEgumPzdlhTf h0O83kDJaXEm8mRHwXKJy5sac7qYOpT+gtv0n+0ujQOfdqh16caWt0foBViH N1PRMXimiLUGt3ElVimlgbllWAAAOw== ==== From stu at asyn.com Thu Jan 26 14:03:48 2006 From: stu at asyn.com (Stuart Donaldson) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:03:48 -0800 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap - cycle time too long In-Reply-To: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> References: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43D8D6C4.5060303@asyn.com> In looking at the roadmap, and building on my earlier comment, I think moving away from a goal of 6 month delivery cycles is a bad idea. Also, the roadmap does not show anything of value to the end user until July with the addition of the very popular custom fields. All of the other stuff appears to be just internal improvements. Important yes, but an end user doesn't care about them. They want features. I disagree with the statement that 6 months is a short time, it is a question of project management, and discipline. Shorter, cycles means more vitality and interest. In fact, I wouldn't view it as a 6 month open period, but a 6 month cycle with 2 months frozen for stabilization. I encourage a release in June or July. Simple text custom fields are already in good shape as I recall. In and of itself is worthy of a release. -Stuart- Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote: > Hi all! > > You will probably be interested by our new Bugzilla roadmap for the > next 9 months. If everything goes well, we will release Bugzilla 3.0 > (instead of Bugzilla 2.24) at the end of this year: > > http://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:Roadmap > > This roadmap will probably change a bit in the coming weeks, > especially deadlines, but that's what we would like to see being done. > > Feel free to comment if I forgot something important in the list; I > wrote it around midnight. :) > > > Fr?d?ric Buclin > - > To view or change your list settings, click here: > From kevin.benton at amd.com Thu Jan 26 17:57:02 2006 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Benton, Kevin) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:57:02 -0800 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap Message-ID: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A4204256515@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> For a .0 release, I think it warrants a little more time to make sure we "get it right." It's going to be critical for publicity's sake that we are careful about our .0 releases because there's a real perception that .0 releases set the tone for how others see the quality of the software being produced over-all. --- Kevin Benton Perl/Bugzilla Developer/Administrator, Perforce SCM Administrator Personal Computing Systems Group Advanced Micro Devices The opinions stated in this communication do not necessarily reflect the view of Advanced Micro Devices and have not been reviewed by management. This communication may contain sensitive and/or confidential and/or proprietary information. Distribution of such information is strictly prohibited without prior consent of Advanced Micro Devices. This communication is for the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, then destroy any remaining copies of this communication. > -----Original Message----- > From: developers-owner at bugzilla.org [mailto:developers-owner at bugzilla.org] > On Behalf Of Stuart Donaldson > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 6:51 AM > To: developers at bugzilla.org > Subject: Re: New Bugzilla Roadmap > > So with an end of year release, has development gone away from the > earlier goal of shorter release cycles? I thought the goal was every 6 > months or so, with features being managed in order to hit the window... > > -Stuart- > > Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote: > > > Hi all! > > > > You will probably be interested by our new Bugzilla roadmap for the > > next 9 months. If everything goes well, we will release Bugzilla 3.0 > > (instead of Bugzilla 2.24) at the end of this year: > > > > http://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:Roadmap > > > > This roadmap will probably change a bit in the coming weeks, > > especially deadlines, but that's what we would like to see being done. > > > > Feel free to comment if I forgot something important in the list; I > > wrote it around midnight. :) > > > > > > Fr?d?ric Buclin > > - > > To view or change your list settings, click here: > > > > > - > To view or change your list settings, click here: > From mkanat at bugzilla.org Thu Jan 26 19:15:51 2006 From: mkanat at bugzilla.org (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:15:51 -0800 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap - cycle time too long In-Reply-To: <43D8D6C4.5060303@asyn.com> References: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> <43D8D6C4.5060303@asyn.com> Message-ID: <1138302951.3095.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 06:03 -0800, Stuart Donaldson wrote: > In looking at the roadmap, and building on my earlier comment, I think > moving away from a goal of 6 month delivery cycles is a bad idea. Yes, that's true. > Also, the roadmap does not show anything of value to the end user until > July with the addition of the very popular custom fields. There will be various things of value to the end user; those aren't the only bugs or enhancements we're going to fix. :-) This is an open-source project after all. People are always patching stuff all *over* the place. :-) > I disagree with the statement that 6 months is a short time, it is a > question of project management, and discipline. Shorter, cycles means > more vitality and interest. In fact, I wouldn't view it as a 6 month > open period, but a 6 month cycle with 2 months frozen for > stabilization. Except that it turns into longer than two months. Momentum is what gets us released, but we lose momentum during a freeze. It's an interesting balance. > I encourage a release in June or July. Simple text > custom fields are already in good shape as I recall. In and of itself > is worthy of a release. I think that's something that we'd consider at that time, anyhow. It's what I would want to do, if possible. And in any case, there will always be dev. releases available. -Max -- http://www.everythingsolved.com/ Competent, Friendly Bugzilla Services. And Everything Else, too. From justdave at bugzilla.org Thu Jan 26 20:52:13 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:52:13 -0500 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap In-Reply-To: <43D8D3D9.2080600@asyn.com> References: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> <43D8D3D9.2080600@asyn.com> Message-ID: <43D9367D.4010309@bugzilla.org> Stuart Donaldson wrote on 1/26/06 8:51 AM: > So with an end of year release, has development gone away from the > earlier goal of shorter release cycles? I thought the goal was every 6 > months or so, with features being managed in order to hit the window... We delayed freezing for 2.22 because 2.20 released late. We're about to reopen the trunk for 2.24 development, however, we're now at the point where if we stay on the original schedule, we have 4 weeks after the trunk opens before we freeze for 2.24. There's several BIG things very close on the horizon, and 4 weeks is too short. Maybe June or July-ish would be a good thing, but sticking with the previously scheduled March 15th seems like a bad idea at this point. -- 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 LpSolit at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 21:11:41 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCdWNsaW4=?=) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:11:41 +0100 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap In-Reply-To: <43D9367D.4010309@bugzilla.org> References: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> <43D8D3D9.2080600@asyn.com> <43D9367D.4010309@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <43D93B0D.6000907@gmail.com> > trunk opens before we freeze for 2.24. There's several BIG things very > close on the horizon, and 4 weeks is too short. Maybe June or July-ish > would be a good thing, but sticking with the previously scheduled March > 15th seems like a bad idea at this point. > Instead of debating now when to freeze, we should first unfreeze and do some work. In other words: there are many new great things which should land this spring/summer, and I think it worths "delaying" our next release a bit if we are very close to have some new features fully implemented but a few weeks are missing. I think we should discuss this point in June, where we could decide what is close enough to get in for 2.24 (or 3.0), and what is late enough to be delayed till our next release. I also want to say that from a QA point of view, releasing often is a pain too, because having 20 or 200 checkins since our last release won't change the number of tests (and consequently the amount of time) required to test the new release. So I would tend to say that at some point the freezing period is incompressible, even if we would release every month (just to say something irrealistic). So 4 months of development followed by 2 months where the development is frozen is a pretty bad ratio IMO. LpSolit From justdave at bugzilla.org Thu Jan 26 22:08:30 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:08:30 -0500 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap In-Reply-To: <43D9367D.4010309@bugzilla.org> References: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> <43D8D3D9.2080600@asyn.com> <43D9367D.4010309@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <43D9485E.5060404@bugzilla.org> David Miller wrote on 1/26/06 3:52 PM: > Stuart Donaldson wrote on 1/26/06 8:51 AM: >> So with an end of year release, has development gone away from the >> earlier goal of shorter release cycles? I thought the goal was every 6 >> months or so, with features being managed in order to hit the window... > > We delayed freezing for 2.22 because 2.20 released late. We're about to > reopen the trunk for 2.24 development, however, we're now at the point > where if we stay on the original schedule, we have 4 weeks after the > trunk opens before we freeze for 2.24. There's several BIG things very > close on the horizon, and 4 weeks is too short. Maybe June or July-ish > would be a good thing, but sticking with the previously scheduled March > 15th seems like a bad idea at this point. And sticking with the Sept 15th makes it 7 months of cycle time for 2.24 instead of 6. That's not a very big change. It's just getting back on schedule. :) -- 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 olav at bkor.dhs.org Thu Jan 26 22:09:01 2006 From: olav at bkor.dhs.org (Olav Vitters) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:09:01 +0100 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap - cycle time too long In-Reply-To: <43D8D6C4.5060303@asyn.com> References: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> <43D8D6C4.5060303@asyn.com> Message-ID: <20060126220901.GA3596@bkor.dhs.org> On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 06:03:48AM -0800, Stuart Donaldson wrote: > Also, the roadmap does not show anything of value to the end user until > July with the addition of the very popular custom fields. All of the > other stuff appears to be just internal improvements. Important yes, > but an end user doesn't care about them. They want features. Last time the 'unfreeze' period was 1 month (perhaps longer, but I only noticed that one month). That is a very, very short time to implement features (with the review process). There still was a lot of activity in that month. After that the tree was frozen again and everything slowed down a lot (understandably). Leaving me waiting for the next unfreeze period. Yeah, I did fix some small issues, but 1 month unfreeze period is too short. 6 months of development with 3 month freeze period sounds great. This gives me a reasonable amount of time to upgrade the installation I maintain before the next Bugzilla release is already out. And hopefully get to merge all the changes that where made. -- Regards, Olav From stu at asyn.com Fri Jan 27 06:05:13 2006 From: stu at asyn.com (Stuart Donaldson) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:05:13 -0800 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap In-Reply-To: <43D9367D.4010309@bugzilla.org> References: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> <43D8D3D9.2080600@asyn.com> <43D9367D.4010309@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <43D9B819.5080909@asyn.com> David Miller wrote: >Stuart Donaldson wrote on 1/26/06 8:51 AM: > > >>So with an end of year release, has development gone away from the >>earlier goal of shorter release cycles? I thought the goal was every 6 >>months or so, with features being managed in order to hit the window... >> >> > >We delayed freezing for 2.22 because 2.20 released late. We're about to >reopen the trunk for 2.24 development, however, we're now at the point >where if we stay on the original schedule, we have 4 weeks after the >trunk opens before we freeze for 2.24. There's several BIG things very >close on the horizon, and 4 weeks is too short. Maybe June or July-ish >would be a good thing, but sticking with the previously scheduled March >15th seems like a bad idea at this point. > > > The slip should not need to accumulate resulting in a 4 week open period. Give yourself 8 or 12 weeks if you think that would give enough time to land some bigger things, then stabilize them. Actually, that reminds me. Why does the trunk freeze during all the rc's? why not at the first rc, create a support branch for bug fixes, and then let the development continue on the trunk? Is it that you are trying to force people to work with the rc in order to ring it out, and you want to encourage people that might be interested in the new stuff to ring out the old first? -Stuart- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justdave at bugzilla.org Fri Jan 27 06:18:00 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:18:00 -0500 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap In-Reply-To: <43D9B819.5080909@asyn.com> References: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> <43D8D3D9.2080600@asyn.com> <43D9367D.4010309@bugzilla.org> <43D9B819.5080909@asyn.com> Message-ID: <43D9BB18.2060406@bugzilla.org> Stuart Donaldson wrote on 1/27/06 1:05 AM: > The slip should not need to accumulate resulting in a 4 week open > period. Give yourself 8 or 12 weeks if you think that would give enough > time to land some bigger things, then stabilize them. But that's 4 weeks instead of 5 months. It's a huge difference. At this point I'd rather do the 7 months instead of 5. (though maybe if we're doing good, we can do a release in the summer instead of waiting until fall, that's not too bad of an idea -- we'll see where we're at closer to summer). > Actually, that reminds me. Why does the trunk freeze during all the > rc's? why not at the first rc, create a support branch for bug fixes, > and then let the development continue on the trunk? That's exactly what we are doing. We haven't shipped an RC yet. As soon as the first RC ships, we branch and the trunk is open. > Is it that you are > trying to force people to work with the rc in order to ring it out, and > you want to encourage people that might be interested in the new stuff > to ring out the old first? We freeze the trunk when we hit the scheduled date. At that point, any items which would be considered poor enough state to block the release are flagged. All of those items need to be fixed before we have a release candidate (because the candidate should be good enough state to release, in theory). And yes, the reason is to encourage people to work on fixing the release blockers instead of working on new features. And it works. And we've had major problems trying to get blockers fixed in the past when we haven't enforced a freeze. It's a volunteer labor force. We can't force anyone to work on anything. And nobody likes to work on blockers. So the only motivation that seems to work is "you can't check in your new feature until the blockers are fixed." Eventually people get tired of waiting to check in and start helping to fix the blockers. -- 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 Fri Jan 27 06:24:58 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:24:58 -0500 Subject: Future of this list In-Reply-To: References: <43A8D4DB.7060100@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <43D9BCBA.3050503@bugzilla.org> Christopher Hicks wrote on 12/22/05 4:05 AM: > On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, David Miller wrote: >> I *could* make an attempt to gateway *this* mailing list to the new >> newsgroup if we wanted. I don't know offhand how to do it. > > This would seem to be good. Many folks never touch a news reader or > google groups. It sounds like the news stuff is being done well enough > that spam concerns and such could be addressed without miminal agony. > > I also like the idea of keeping the existing address as usable for > posting purposes. > > Was any consideration given to an intermidiate sort of list/group? We > have a lot of folks who aren't developers of bugzilla itself and don't > intend to be who have questions that are more code-oriented. Given that > code confuses many sadly (so it should be minimized in the support area) > and the developers list should be focused on general issues and isn't > the ideal place to deal with support stuff, having another group in > between might be good. Hmm, okay, that's sort of a good excuse to leave the new mozilla.dev.apps.bugzilla newsgroup as a separate entity. It does have a corresponding mailing list (dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org). Maybe we should use that as the in-between list and leave this one as-is instead of moving it there... Use this list for project business and that one for customization support? -- 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 mkanat at bugzilla.org Fri Jan 27 06:54:03 2006 From: mkanat at bugzilla.org (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:54:03 -0800 Subject: New Bugzilla Roadmap In-Reply-To: <43D9B819.5080909@asyn.com> References: <43D74CCE.5040908@gmail.com> <43D8D3D9.2080600@asyn.com> <43D9367D.4010309@bugzilla.org> <43D9B819.5080909@asyn.com> Message-ID: <1138344844.3134.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 22:05 -0800, Stuart Donaldson wrote: > Actually, that reminds me. Why does the trunk freeze during all the > rc's? why not at the first rc, create a support branch for bug fixes, > and then let the development continue on the trunk? That's what we do. We haven't had an RC of 2.22 yet, only development snapshots. -Max -- http://www.everythingsolved.com/ Competent, Friendly Bugzilla Services. And Everything Else, too. From gerv at mozilla.org Fri Jan 27 08:07:35 2006 From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:07:35 +0000 Subject: Future of this list In-Reply-To: <43D9BCBA.3050503@bugzilla.org> References: <43A8D4DB.7060100@bugzilla.org> <43D9BCBA.3050503@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <43D9D4C7.8010209@mozilla.org> David Miller wrote: > Hmm, okay, that's sort of a good excuse to leave the new > mozilla.dev.apps.bugzilla newsgroup as a separate entity. It does have > a corresponding mailing list (dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org). > Maybe we should use that as the in-between list and leave this one as-is > instead of moving it there... > > Use this list for project business and that one for customization support? That would be a departure from how the other parallel lists are used, and so I think would be a cause for confusion. We now have two lists available to us in the new hierarchy: mozilla.dev.apps.bugzilla mozilla.support.bugzilla It seems pretty clear to me that one's for support and the other is for development :-) Customisation questions which touch code are indeed a grey area, so I suggest we simply answer them wherever they appear. Gerv From mkanat at bugzilla.org Fri Jan 27 21:17:14 2006 From: mkanat at bugzilla.org (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:17:14 -0800 Subject: Future of this list In-Reply-To: <43D9BCBA.3050503@bugzilla.org> References: <43A8D4DB.7060100@bugzilla.org> <43D9BCBA.3050503@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <1138396634.4164.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 01:24 -0500, David Miller wrote: > Hmm, okay, that's sort of a good excuse to leave the new > mozilla.dev.apps.bugzilla newsgroup as a separate entity. It does have > a corresponding mailing list (dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org). > Maybe we should use that as the in-between list and leave this one as-is > instead of moving it there... > > Use this list for project business and that one for customization support? I think lists are mostly defined by "who should be subscribed to this list." That's why "developers at bugzilla.org" is a great name, because it makes it really clear who should be subscribed. :-) Same for support-bugzilla. It's hard to say who should be subscribed to a "help me with my customization" list. :-) I probably wouldn't want to subscribe, because I'm not customizing Bugzilla (well, I am for my Everything Solved clients, but I don't usually have questions that the list could answer). And yet, I'd be one of the people with the answers. I think we should have only two lists, one for users, and one for developers, however it works out. -Max -- http://www.everythingsolved.com/ Competent, Friendly Bugzilla Services. And Everything Else, too. From micklweiss at gmx.net Sat Jan 28 17:37:05 2006 From: micklweiss at gmx.net (Mick Weiss) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:37:05 -0500 Subject: Selenium IDE version 0.7 (beta) Message-ID: <43DBABC1.80709@gmx.net> For those writing selenium scripts: A beta build of the upcoming Selenium IDE version 0.7 is out. You can install it from here: http://www.kbmj.com/~shinya/seleniumrecorder/selenium-ide-0.7beta1.xpi Some things that have been done in this release (from what I remember): - autocomplete support for commands, and it now uses "component" functionality in Mozilla to use the autocomplete feature. - assertTable support - the xpath locator in IE has been fixed (probably some other stuff too but this is what I remember) Note, you may need to delete "compreg.dat" which is found in your profile directory to make the component registered, if you are running Selenium IDE without building xpi file like the way mentioned here:http://wiki.openqa.org/display/SIDE/Building+Selenium+IDE - Mick From justdave at bugzilla.org Mon Jan 30 01:41:54 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:41:54 -0500 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <43D82C48.7000007@gmail.com> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> <1138236218.3994.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43D82C48.7000007@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43DD6EE2.3050806@bugzilla.org> Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote on 1/25/06 8:56 PM: > If 17:00 - 23:00 GMT is fine for most of you (nobody is against?), I > would suggest to meet somewhere between Monday and Wednesday. I think we > have more free time at the beginning of weeks than at the end. > > Comments? We could start next week. ;) Hmm, the best times for me are around 00:00 - 05:00 GMT. 17:00 - 20:00 GMT range would work if necessary. between 20:00 and 00:00 I tend to have other things happening. -- 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 LpSolit at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 09:14:48 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCdWNsaW4=?=) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:14:48 +0100 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <43DD6EE2.3050806@bugzilla.org> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> <1138236218.3994.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43D82C48.7000007@gmail.com> <43DD6EE2.3050806@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <43DDD908.6080407@gmail.com> > Hmm, the best times for me are around 00:00 - 05:00 GMT. Wow, that's the second half of the night for us, Europeans. It will be hard to wake up at 6-8am. ;) > > 17:00 - 20:00 GMT range would work if necessary. between 20:00 and > 00:00 I tend to have other things happening. May I suggest 19:00 - 20:00 GMT in this case? This would mean 11:00 - 12:00 AM for those being at the west side of the US; they should be awake :) From justdave at bugzilla.org Mon Jan 30 18:49:49 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:49:49 -0500 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <43DDD908.6080407@gmail.com> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> <1138236218.3994.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43D82C48.7000007@gmail.com> <43DD6EE2.3050806@bugzilla.org> <43DDD908.6080407@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43DE5FCD.4060605@bugzilla.org> Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote on 1/30/06 4:14 AM: >> Hmm, the best times for me are around 00:00 - 05:00 GMT. > > Wow, that's the second half of the night for us, Europeans. It will be > hard to wake up at 6-8am. ;) > >> 17:00 - 20:00 GMT range would work if necessary. between 20:00 and >> 00:00 I tend to have other things happening. > > May I suggest 19:00 - 20:00 GMT in this case? This would mean 11:00 - > 12:00 AM for those being at the west side of the US; they should be > awake :) OK, this sounds like a good time... Today is probably too soon to expect people to make it on short notice though, since that's in about 10 minutes. :) How about tomorrow? or is that still too soon? -- 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 LpSolit at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 19:05:07 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCdWNsaW4=?=) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:05:07 +0100 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <43DE5FCD.4060605@bugzilla.org> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> <1138236218.3994.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43D82C48.7000007@gmail.com> <43DD6EE2.3050806@bugzilla.org> <43DDD908.6080407@gmail.com> <43DE5FCD.4060605@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <43DE6363.8060803@gmail.com> > OK, this sounds like a good time... Today is probably too soon to > expect people to make it on short notice though, since that's in about > 10 minutes. :) How about tomorrow? or is that still too soon? > Now is fine for me. :-D Tomorrow at 19:00 GMT is fine for me too. I will be here. In which channel? From mkanat at bugzilla.org Mon Jan 30 19:13:34 2006 From: mkanat at bugzilla.org (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:13:34 -0800 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <43DE5FCD.4060605@bugzilla.org> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> <1138236218.3994.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43D82C48.7000007@gmail.com> <43DD6EE2.3050806@bugzilla.org> <43DDD908.6080407@gmail.com> <43DE5FCD.4060605@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <1138648415.3209.1.camel@es-lappy> On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 13:49 -0500, David Miller wrote: > OK, this sounds like a good time... Today is probably too soon to > expect people to make it on short notice though, since that's in about > 10 minutes. :) How about tomorrow? or is that still too soon? I think even tomorrow is too soon. :-) I think it would be best to have a week's advance notice of the time. -Max -- http://www.everythingsolved.com/ Everything Solved: Competent, Friendly Bugzilla and Linux Services From justdave at bugzilla.org Mon Jan 30 19:18:10 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:18:10 -0500 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <43DE6363.8060803@gmail.com> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> <1138236218.3994.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43D82C48.7000007@gmail.com> <43DD6EE2.3050806@bugzilla.org> <43DDD908.6080407@gmail.com> <43DE5FCD.4060605@bugzilla.org> <43DE6363.8060803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43DE6672.5070300@bugzilla.org> Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote on 1/30/06 2:05 PM: >> OK, this sounds like a good time... Today is probably too soon to >> expect people to make it on short notice though, since that's in about >> 10 minutes. :) How about tomorrow? or is that still too soon? > > Now is fine for me. :-D Tomorrow at 19:00 GMT is fine for me too. I will > be here. In which channel? I think tomorrow would be better, I have too much going on today to be able to pay much attention. -- 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 Mon Jan 30 19:24:52 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:24:52 -0500 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <1138648415.3209.1.camel@es-lappy> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> <1138236218.3994.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43D82C48.7000007@gmail.com> <43DD6EE2.3050806@bugzilla.org> <43DDD908.6080407@gmail.com> <43DE5FCD.4060605@bugzilla.org> <1138648415.3209.1.camel@es-lappy> Message-ID: <43DE6804.9020707@bugzilla.org> Max Kanat-Alexander wrote on 1/30/06 2:13 PM: > On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 13:49 -0500, David Miller wrote: >> OK, this sounds like a good time... Today is probably too soon to >> expect people to make it on short notice though, since that's in about >> 10 minutes. :) How about tomorrow? or is that still too soon? > > I think even tomorrow is too soon. :-) I think it would be best to have > a week's advance notice of the time. OK, all the people *currently* on IRC think Thursday at 19:00 GMT is a good time. Anyone else out there that wants to be involved that would have a problem making it? -- 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 Mon Jan 30 19:32:18 2006 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Benton, Kevin) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:32:18 -0800 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) Message-ID: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A4204256D40@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> > On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 13:49 -0500, David Miller wrote: > > OK, this sounds like a good time... Today is probably too soon to > > expect people to make it on short notice though, since that's in about > > 10 minutes. :) How about tomorrow? or is that still too soon? > > I think even tomorrow is too soon. :-) I think it would be best to > have > a week's advance notice of the time. I agree that advance notice is important. I also think it's going to be important to have an agenda for the meeting and to distribute that agenda to potential attendees prior to the meeting. I would much rather attend a meeting that has stated goals than one without goals. Meetings with stated agendas give attendees time to prepare for what's planned to be discussed. Has anyone given thought yet to how the meeting will be run? What structure will be used? How will order be maintained (preventing communications break-down)? Who will take notes? Who will lead the meeting? Where will the meeting be held? Should we have a special channel for the meeting? Will a Wiki be set up prior to the meeting for document sharing? Where will the meeting notes be posted for those who are not able to attend? How does one sign up for the meeting notifications? I ask these questions because I want to be able to justify to my boss why I'm planning to spend a block of time on the IRC rather than working on code that needs to be modified here. --- Kevin Benton Perl/Bugzilla Developer/Administrator, Perforce SCM Administrator Personal Computing Systems Group Advanced Micro Devices The opinions stated in this communication do not necessarily reflect the view of Advanced Micro Devices and have not been reviewed by management. This communication may contain sensitive and/or confidential and/or proprietary information. Distribution of such information is strictly prohibited without prior consent of Advanced Micro Devices. This communication is for the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, then destroy any remaining copies of this communication. From justdave at bugzilla.org Mon Jan 30 20:18:45 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:18:45 -0500 Subject: bugzilla.org mail server moving Message-ID: <43DE74A5.30600@bugzilla.org> The server which is currently hosting email and mailing lists for bugzilla.org is moving to a new colo facility this afternoon. (Actually, it's moving to a completely new box as well, which is already located at the new facility). There may be a mail outage at some point this afternoon while the switch is made. If all goes well, the outage will be on the order of 10 to 15 minutes, but it could be a few hours on a worst-case scenario. There is no set schedule for it because the deadline is too tight (the old colo is cutting off the network connection tonight). It'll move as soon as all the pieces are in place on the new box. -- 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 LpSolit at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 22:08:58 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Buclin?=) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:08:58 +0100 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A4204256D40@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A4204256D40@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> Message-ID: <43DE8E7A.2090807@gmail.com> > Has anyone given thought yet to how the meeting will be run? What > structure will be used? How will order be maintained (preventing > communications break-down)? Who will take notes? Who will lead the > meeting? Where will the meeting be held? Should we have a special > channel for the meeting? Will a Wiki be set up prior to the meeting for > document sharing? Where will the meeting notes be posted for those who > are not able to attend? How does one sign up for the meeting > notifications? I think this answers most questions Kevin had: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:Meetings From mkanat at bugzilla.org Mon Jan 30 22:44:50 2006 From: mkanat at bugzilla.org (Max Kanat-Alexander) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:44:50 -0800 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) In-Reply-To: <43DE6804.9020707@bugzilla.org> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> <1138236218.3994.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43D82C48.7000007@gmail.com> <43DD6EE2.3050806@bugzilla.org> <43DDD908.6080407@gmail.com> <43DE5FCD.4060605@bugzilla.org> <1138648415.3209.1.camel@es-lappy> <43DE6804.9020707@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <1138661090.6919.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 14:24 -0500, David Miller wrote: > OK, all the people *currently* on IRC think Thursday at 19:00 GMT is a > good time. Works for me. That's 11am PST, I believe. -Max -- http://www.everythingsolved.com/ Competent, Friendly Bugzilla Services. And Everything Else, too. From kevin.benton at amd.com Mon Jan 30 22:15:09 2006 From: kevin.benton at amd.com (Benton, Kevin) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:15:09 -0800 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings (was: RE: New Bugzilla Roadmap) Message-ID: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A4204256DFE@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> > > Has anyone given thought yet to how the meeting will be run? What > > structure will be used? How will order be maintained (preventing > > communications break-down)? Who will take notes? Who will lead the > > meeting? Where will the meeting be held? Should we have a special > > channel for the meeting? Will a Wiki be set up prior to the meeting for > > document sharing? Where will the meeting notes be posted for those who > > are not able to attend? How does one sign up for the meeting > > notifications? > > I think this answers most questions Kevin had: > > http://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:Meetings Great - I hadn't seen that here till this message... :) Maybe I missed it... --- Kevin Benton Perl/Bugzilla Developer/Administrator, Perforce SCM Administrator Personal Computing Systems Group Advanced Micro Devices The opinions stated in this communication do not necessarily reflect the view of Advanced Micro Devices and have not been reviewed by management. This communication may contain sensitive and/or confidential and/or proprietary information. Distribution of such information is strictly prohibited without prior consent of Advanced Micro Devices. This communication is for the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, then destroy any remaining copies of this communication. From LpSolit at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 22:51:56 2006 From: LpSolit at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCdWNsaW4=?=) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:51:56 +0100 Subject: Bugzilla Developer Meetings In-Reply-To: <1138661090.6919.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <6F7DA19D05F3CF40B890C7CA2DB13A42040BD3C0@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <43D7AB10.4050800@gmail.com> <2cb10c440601251452r665cc313v586e49e38e9c0c6a@mail.gmail.com> <1138236218.3994.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43D82C48.7000007@gmail.com> <43DD6EE2.3050806@bugzilla.org> <43DDD908.6080407@gmail.com> <43DE5FCD.4060605@bugzilla.org> <1138648415.3209.1.camel@es-lappy> <43DE6804.9020707@bugzilla.org> <1138661090.6919.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <43DE988C.9020808@gmail.com> > Works for me. That's 11am PST, I believe. Yes, that's what the page on wiki says too. ;) From justdave at bugzilla.org Tue Jan 31 13:06:18 2006 From: justdave at bugzilla.org (David Miller) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:06:18 -0500 Subject: bugzilla.org mail server moving In-Reply-To: <43DE74A5.30600@bugzilla.org> References: <43DE74A5.30600@bugzilla.org> Message-ID: <43DF60CA.3030204@bugzilla.org> David Miller wrote on 1/30/06 3:18 PM: > There is no set schedule for it because the deadline is too tight (the > old colo is cutting off the network connection tonight). It'll move as > soon as all the pieces are in place on the new box. OK, the server has moved now. This is mostly a test mail to make sure majordomo is working on the new server. :) -- Dave Miller http://www.justdave.net/ System Administrator, Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.bugzilla.org/