From sgreen at redhat.com Wed May 1 00:42:43 2013 From: sgreen at redhat.com (Simon Green) Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 10:42:43 +1000 Subject: Old Discussion: Python Implementation? (Bugzilla:Languages) In-Reply-To: <1367365942332-278916.post@n7.nabble.com> References: <51790429.2020709@mozilla.org> <1367365942332-278916.post@n7.nabble.com> Message-ID: <51806503.8090507@redhat.com> On 01/05/13 09:52, lindsay wrote: > Perl 5 cannot be maintained for another 20 years. Says who? Perl 5 is still actively developed and maintained, just as much as any other modern development language. > If your plan for Bugzilla's progress is to have Bugzilla communicate via > RESTful interfaces (or whatever replaces REST), then yes, the codebase > inside those interfaces can be with us for a great many years. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=866927 Enhance Bugzilla WebServices to allow data access using REST > If your plan > for progress involves a fair bit of extension to the core codebase, then a > plugins structure would be a good investment. Python has a good story when > it comes to plugins. Bugzilla's extension framework is not great, but it is pretty good. It does about 80% of what bugzilla.redhat.com (which I help maintain) needs it to do. > So I think that's the issue. Is the core stable/done, or will it grow > significantly ? It definitely is not 'done'. There are 2,353 open bugs in the upstream project, and while all of them probably won't be implemented, a lot of them will be. In all honesty, I think porting Bugzilla to another language is a bad idea. Bugzilla is 14? years old now. I'm sure writing a new bug tracking system from scratch (with a converter of course), is going to be better than trying to keep up with the constant changes of the Bugzilla code base. This of course, is no small task. -- Regards, Simon Green Software Engineer Red Hat Asia Pacific Pty Ltd From aliustek at gmail.com Wed May 15 17:03:48 2013 From: aliustek at gmail.com (rojanu) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 10:03:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Adding See also to bugs Message-ID: <80dda0f0-1a09-491b-80fc-64cf8b203ceb@googlegroups.com> Hi I am writing a class to import bugs from a bug tracker I need to update the see also field of the bugs, I have foreach my $ids (@$result){ my ($bug_id, $see_also) = @$ids; my $bug = Bugzilla::Bug->check($bug_id); if(!@{$bug->see_also}){ $self->debug("Linking Bugs: $bug_id <-> $see_also"); my %set_all_fields; $set_all_fields{who} = $self->config('default_assignee'); $set_all_fields{see_also}->{add} = [$see_also]; $bug->set_all(\%set_all_fields); $bug->update(); } But this fields are not enough to update the bug as the DB constraints are not satisfied. What other fields do I need? Thanks, rojanu _______________________________________________ dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla From mtb19 at columbia.edu Thu May 16 20:18:43 2013 From: mtb19 at columbia.edu (Matthew Bogosian) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:18:43 -0700 Subject: Old Discussion: Python Implementation? (Bugzilla:Languages) In-Reply-To: <51806503.8090507@redhat.com> References: <51790429.2020709@mozilla.org> <1367365942332-278916.post@n7.nabble.com> <51806503.8090507@redhat.com> Message-ID: <7610355A-4255-438D-89A4-6B1222DBE205@columbia.edu> It sounds like the landscape has changed since the proposal to consider languages/architectures was first raised. I am reluctant to take it on if there is little interest. There are plenty of bug trackers out there, so I'm not sure the world needs another. I should say that I don't doubt that Perl or COBOL or whatever is "maintainable" indefinitely, but I'm not sure that's the point. Among the problems I was trying to solve was that (IMO) Perl requires a great deal of time and expertise to fully grok.* This leads to more project-specific, extra-language overhead (e.g., more complex coding conventions, more complex change processes, increasingly complex abstraction layers, etc.). It also likely shrinks the available pool of potential contributors. This may lead to fewer acceptable patches, fewer candidates to carry the torch when existing maintainers move on, etc. I realize there are (currently) many commercial entities that have put a bunch of eggs in the Bugzilla basket, but this does not guarantee immortality. Thanks for everybody's input. I will let sleeping dogs lie for now, but if the mood changes in the future, maybe I can be of assistance.... --Matt * Please keep in mind my own bias. I'm still unclear what "good" Perl looks like. It is undeniable that Perl is popular, but there's a difference between being hacking something that works, and engineering something that is clean, elegant, understandable by outsiders, and only as complex as it needs to be. It feels like proficiency in Perl and in many things written in it requires more effort than other architectures. I accept that I could be wrong about this. On Apr 30, 2013, at 17:42, Simon Green wrote: > On 01/05/13 09:52, lindsay wrote: >> Perl 5 cannot be maintained for another 20 years. > > Says who? Perl 5 is still actively developed and maintained, just as > much as any other modern development language. > >> If your plan for Bugzilla's progress is to have Bugzilla communicate via >> RESTful interfaces (or whatever replaces REST), then yes, the codebase >> inside those interfaces can be with us for a great many years. > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=866927 > Enhance Bugzilla WebServices to allow data access using REST > >> If your plan >> for progress involves a fair bit of extension to the core codebase, then a >> plugins structure would be a good investment. Python has a good story when >> it comes to plugins. > > Bugzilla's extension framework is not great, but it is pretty good. It > does about 80% of what bugzilla.redhat.com (which I help maintain) needs > it to do. > >> So I think that's the issue. Is the core stable/done, or will it grow >> significantly ? > > It definitely is not 'done'. There are 2,353 open bugs in the upstream > project, and while all of them probably won't be implemented, a lot of > them will be. > > In all honesty, I think porting Bugzilla to another language is a bad > idea. Bugzilla is 14? years old now. I'm sure writing a new bug tracking > system from scratch (with a converter of course), is going to be better > than trying to keep up with the constant changes of the Bugzilla code base. > > This of course, is no small task. > > -- > Regards, > > Simon Green > Software Engineer > Red Hat Asia Pacific Pty Ltd > - > To view or change your list settings, click here: > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4237 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kar at cray.com Fri May 17 14:57:43 2013 From: kar at cray.com (Kent Rogers) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 09:57:43 -0500 Subject: Old Discussion: Python Implementation? (Bugzilla:Languages) In-Reply-To: <7610355A-4255-438D-89A4-6B1222DBE205@columbia.edu> References: <51790429.2020709@mozilla.org> <1367365942332-278916.post@n7.nabble.com> <51806503.8090507@redhat.com> <7610355A-4255-438D-89A4-6B1222DBE205@columbia.edu> Message-ID: <20130517145743.GD2164@cray.com> I've been doing Bugzilla development and admin'ing an installation for over 5 years and originally I didn't think a lot about this post. It seemed like somewhat of an outrageous idea, but as I continue to wait for 4.4, something that struck me in this last reply (which I also thought of right before I read it): "It also likely shrinks the available pool of potential contributors. This may lead to fewer acceptable patches, fewer candidates to carry the torch when existing maintainers move on, etc." This suddenly seems to be an issue and AFAICT, it appears that Bugzilla is on the decline. :-( I have no data, but contributors seem to be down and releases taking longer. I have shied away from contributing myself for the last couple years for various reasons, some that I suppose are attributable to Perl and some that definitely aren't. 4.4 was supposed to be released months ago. 4.4rc2 finally came out in February but I have not heard *anything* about the prospects for the final release since then. I don't hang out on IRC, but I don't recall anything being posted here, on the bugzilla.org web site, or on the Bugzilla Wiki. The Roadmap on the Bugzilla Wiki hasn't been updated since 2010 (and doesn't even list 4.4), and the IRC Meeting page on the wiki lists the next IRC meeting as taking place on 2/15/12! I'm not saying the proposal should necessarily be considered (although I'd use Python if I were starting from scratch), but I wanted to give feedback based on my observations over the last year or so. -Kent On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 01:18:43PM -0700, Matthew Bogosian wrote: > It sounds like the landscape has changed since the proposal to consider languages/architectures was first raised. I am reluctant to take it on if there is little interest. There are plenty of bug trackers out there, so I'm not sure the world needs another. > > I should say that I don't doubt that Perl or COBOL or whatever is "maintainable" indefinitely, but I'm not sure that's the point. Among the problems I was trying to solve was that (IMO) Perl requires a great deal of time and expertise to fully grok.* This leads to more project-specific, extra-language overhead (e.g., more complex coding conventions, more complex change processes, increasingly complex abstraction layers, etc.). It also likely shrinks the available pool of potential contributors. This may lead to fewer acceptable patches, fewer candidates to carry the torch when existing maintainers move on, etc. I realize there are (currently) many commercial entities that have put a bunch of eggs in the Bugzilla basket, but this does not guarantee immortality. > > Thanks for everybody's input. I will let sleeping dogs lie for now, but if the mood changes in the future, maybe I can be of assistance.... > > > --Matt > > * Please keep in mind my own bias. I'm still unclear what "good" Perl looks like. It is undeniable that Perl is popular, but there's a difference between being hacking something that works, and engineering something that is clean, elegant, understandable by outsiders, and only as complex as it needs to be. It feels like proficiency in Perl and in many things written in it requires more effort than other architectures. I accept that I could be wrong about this. > > > On Apr 30, 2013, at 17:42, Simon Green wrote: > > > On 01/05/13 09:52, lindsay wrote: > >> Perl 5 cannot be maintained for another 20 years. > > > > Says who? Perl 5 is still actively developed and maintained, just as > > much as any other modern development language. > > > >> If your plan for Bugzilla's progress is to have Bugzilla communicate via > >> RESTful interfaces (or whatever replaces REST), then yes, the codebase > >> inside those interfaces can be with us for a great many years. > > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=866927 > > Enhance Bugzilla WebServices to allow data access using REST > > > >> If your plan > >> for progress involves a fair bit of extension to the core codebase, then a > >> plugins structure would be a good investment. Python has a good story when > >> it comes to plugins. > > > > Bugzilla's extension framework is not great, but it is pretty good. It > > does about 80% of what bugzilla.redhat.com (which I help maintain) needs > > it to do. > > > >> So I think that's the issue. Is the core stable/done, or will it grow > >> significantly ? > > > > It definitely is not 'done'. There are 2,353 open bugs in the upstream > > project, and while all of them probably won't be implemented, a lot of > > them will be. > > > > In all honesty, I think porting Bugzilla to another language is a bad > > idea. Bugzilla is 14? years old now. I'm sure writing a new bug tracking > > system from scratch (with a converter of course), is going to be better > > than trying to keep up with the constant changes of the Bugzilla code base. > > > > This of course, is no small task. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Simon Green > > Software Engineer > > Red Hat Asia Pacific Pty Ltd > > - > > To view or change your list settings, click here: > > > From Nick.Barnes at pobox.com Fri May 17 15:35:07 2013 From: Nick.Barnes at pobox.com (Nick Barnes) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 16:35:07 +0100 Subject: Database schema document generation has moved Message-ID: The semi-automatic documentation tool that I wrote for the Bugzilla database schema has moved to http://www.ravenbrook.com/tool/bugzilla-schema/and the source code and data for it is all at https://github.com/Ravenbrook/bugzilla-schema Note that this hasn't been updated (apart from this move) for several years. I hope that someone in the Bugzilla development community will feel able to adopt this project. I don't have time for it any more, and as it gets more out-dated this tool, which was once indispensable to me at least, becomes less and less useful. Regards, Nick B -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lpsolit at gmail.com Fri May 17 15:41:49 2013 From: lpsolit at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Buclin?=) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:41:49 +0200 Subject: Old Discussion: Python Implementation? (Bugzilla:Languages) In-Reply-To: <20130517145743.GD2164@cray.com> References: <51790429.2020709@mozilla.org> <1367365942332-278916.post@n7.nabble.com> <51806503.8090507@redhat.com> <7610355A-4255-438D-89A4-6B1222DBE205@columbia.edu> <20130517145743.GD2164@cray.com> Message-ID: <51964FBD.4000806@gmail.com> Le 17. 05. 13 16:57, Kent Rogers a ?crit : > 4.4 was supposed to be released months ago. 4.4rc2 finally came out in > February but I have not heard *anything* about the prospects for the final > release since then. I don't hang out on IRC, but I don't recall anything > being posted here, on the bugzilla.org web site, or on the Bugzilla Wiki. Did you read https://plus.google.com/104215203522965843895/posts/Y1wV69vic8r ? > The Roadmap on the Bugzilla Wiki hasn't been updated since 2010 (and > doesn't even list 4.4), and the IRC Meeting page on the wiki lists the next > IRC meeting as taking place on 2/15/12! The fact that we did no meeting since February 2012 is because this is no longer needed. We did them because there was a lot of work going on in parallel for Bugzilla 3.0, but now the back-end code rewrite is now complete and such meetings are no longer necessary. Everyone is free to start a fork of Bugzilla and rewrite it in Python. But IMO, that's a whole separate project. LpSolit From kar at cray.com Fri May 17 19:57:47 2013 From: kar at cray.com (Kent Rogers) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:57:47 -0500 Subject: Old Discussion: Python Implementation? (Bugzilla:Languages) In-Reply-To: <51964FBD.4000806@gmail.com> References: <51790429.2020709@mozilla.org> <1367365942332-278916.post@n7.nabble.com> <51806503.8090507@redhat.com> <7610355A-4255-438D-89A4-6B1222DBE205@columbia.edu> <20130517145743.GD2164@cray.com> <51964FBD.4000806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130517195747.GA24862@cray.com> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 05:41:49PM +0200, Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote: > Le 17. 05. 13 16:57, Kent Rogers a ?crit : > > 4.4 was supposed to be released months ago. 4.4rc2 finally came out in > > February but I have not heard *anything* about the prospects for the > > final release since then. I don't hang out on IRC, but I don't recall > > anything being posted here, on the bugzilla.org web site, or on the > > Bugzilla Wiki. > > Did you read > https://plus.google.com/104215203522965843895/posts/Y1wV69vic8r ? > No. I was unaware of this web site. Thank you for posting it. What was the last blocker? BTW, is there a reason this information is not available on bugzilla.org and/or the Bugzilla Wiki? Is the google web site linked from anywhere on bugzilla.org or is it the official site now? If so, I missed that along the way. > > > The Roadmap on the Bugzilla Wiki hasn't been updated since 2010 (and > > doesn't even list 4.4), and the IRC Meeting page on the wiki lists the > > next IRC meeting as taking place on 2/15/12! > > The fact that we did no meeting since February 2012 is because this is > no longer needed. We did them because there was a lot of work going on > in parallel for Bugzilla 3.0, but now the back-end code rewrite is now > complete and such meetings are no longer necessary. > There's no mention of this anywhere that I can find on bugzilla.org or the Wiki. If meetings are no longer applicable, I'd recommend updating the wiki so that's clear. You can hopefully see how the lack of information/updates conveys the appearance I mentioned. Now that 4.4 is imminent, it would be great to know where we are headed (i.e. what to expect in 5.0). People in my organization are starting to doubt Bugzilla and want to look at alternatives, and it's hard to give persuasive arguments to the contrary when I can't answer the questions being raised. > Everyone is free to start a fork of Bugzilla and rewrite it in Python. > But IMO, that's a whole separate project. > I agree. -Kent From us_office2 at bizdiagnosis.com Fri May 24 17:20:03 2013 From: us_office2 at bizdiagnosis.com (=?windows-1255?B?8fDp8yDg+OQi4SAtIOTu6+XvIOzg4efl7yDy8ffp?=) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 19:20:03 +0200 Subject: =?windows-1255?B?UmU6IO7j5fIg4en5+ODsIOzgIO745eXp5+nt?= Message-ID: <0MNB00IBJ9PEGFJ0@mxout2.netvision.net.il> ????. ????? ?????? ?????? ????? 10 ? 94 ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ????? 13 ????? ????????, ???? ????? ??? 12 ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????-?????, ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????, ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???. ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????, ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????. ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? "??? ???? ????? ??????", ???? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???. ????? ?????? ???? ???, 3 ?????, 17:30 ?? 20:00, ??? ???-???????. ????? ???? ??????? ??????. ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????????? ????. ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???. ??? ???? ??????, ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????: ?? ????? / ????: ?? ??? ????: ????? ???? : ???: ??-???? : ?????, ??? ???? ???? ???"?. *???? ??????? ????? ? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????. ????? ?????? ???? Ventura Blvd, Woodland, California ????? ???? ????? (24 ???? ?????): 03-7300852 dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org - ??? ????. ????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? Business Diagnosis Institute - ???-???'??, ???"?. ?????? ????? ?????? ??????. ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????. ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??????, ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????. ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????, ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? "???" ????? ?????. . ???? ? dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla From gerv at mozilla.org Fri May 24 16:17:16 2013 From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:17:16 +0100 Subject: Bugzilla explanatory presentation Message-ID: <519F928C.7040104@mozilla.org> I'm writing the script for an explanatory Popcorn presentation about Bugzilla (focussing on BMO). I've done a draft, and I'd really appreciate review comments: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Capture_Mozilla/Bugzilla Gerv _______________________________________________ dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla