2011/6/25 Ahmad Samir <[email protected]>: > On 25 June 2011 22:15, Samuel Verschelde <[email protected]> wrote: >> Le samedi 25 juin 2011 21:22:20, Ahmad Samir a écrit : >>> On 25 June 2011 19:33, Samuel Verschelde <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Le vendredi 24 juin 2011 21:39:51, Ahmad Samir a écrit : >>> >> On 24 June 2011 02:09, Michael Scherer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > - Someone request a backport ( by bugzilla, by madb, by a email, by >>> >> > taking a packager family in hostage, whatever ). I would prefer use >>> >> > bugzilla but this may not be very user friendly, or too heavy. >>> >> >>> >> How would the packager get notified of backports requests via madb? >>> > >>> > There are several options : >>> > - option 1 : maintainers prefer to have all backports requests in >>> > bugzilla. Madb will then create backports requests via XML-RPC, with the >>> > original reporter in CC maybe, and regularly watch bug report status. >>> > This will be extra work on madb's side and force those users (who maybe >>> > don't know how to use bugzilla) to use 1 tool for the request and a >>> > different tool for testing reports, but why not. >>> > - option 2 : maintainers are OK to use bugzilla for bugs and madb for >>> > package requests => madb will query the maintainers database and notify >>> > the maintainer(s) by mail. It could, like bugzilla, send notifications >>> > to a ML too, and provide a simple yet sufficient tracking system >>> > (status, comments). >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> >> Would you elaborate on how bugzilla is heavy for a backports request? >>> > >>> > Heavy I don't know, but I think that we can give users a better tool to >>> > request backports, see what backports already have been requested, etc. >>> >>> Yes, but what's wrong with bugzilla and better in the other tool? >> >> Bugzilla is an issue tracker, and is centered on that concept. I think that a >> simple "request backport" button in a package database browsing application >> can be easier and more efficient, in that the "need" will be more easily >> transmitted from the user to the packager. The backports requests we get >> today >> (and got back in mandriva) don't represent the majority of needs. I'd like to >> see what happens if users have a dead simple way to request them. >> > > You want to interface for users, so that they don't have to deal with > a 1minute-to-fill bug report to request a backport... that's your > prerogative, I don' have a problem with that as long as it works.
The "Request Backport Button" could be a solution for non-english speakers. They can not use Bugzilla because they can not write in English to make their request understood, but they can find the package name in a database and understand the function of a button which reads "Backport". -- wobo
