Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 00:46, Michael Scherer wrote: > Le vendredi 07 janvier 2011 à 19:04 +0100, Romain d'Alverny a écrit : >> So trying to summarize above discussion, I suggest as products: >> [...] >> * Websites with components: >> [...] >> - (for versions, live/dev does not make much sense here; so maybe >> just numbering, maybe just no version for a start; depends on the >> release process) > > If we intend ( and Buchan do, and I am sure that Stormi also ) to reuse > and let people reuse some of the web software we wrote outside of Mageia > ( ie, Buchan spoke of having identity to be proposed to the openldap > community ), I would keep website for the installation we have, and also > treat them as software for people who deployed it on their own server. > But that doesn't apply to everything, obviously. > > So in website, we treat our instances, and then I think that depend on > the number of instance we have. Even if I doubt we will have more than > "stable" "no stable" ( or trunk / stable, whatever the name ). Yep. Ok, so for Mageia web apps/sites, we start with a single "production" version and leave the possibility to have the software code available in the Software products or in any other upstream bugtracker. >> * Infrastructure >> - ? (misc?) > > I do think that people should fill bug report against me elsehwere than > on mageia bugzilla. :D > For infrastructure, I guess we can simply put 1 product, and later > decide once we see what is buggy ( because we did not plan to have bugs > yet, so we cannot tell where they should be filled ). Sounds good yes. > Maybe say that we review the component every year with bug triage team ? Or whenever raised as necessary, yes. Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
Frederic Janssens a écrit : On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 17:49, andre999 wrote: Frederic Janssens a écrit : On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 06:19, andre999wrote: As for documentation and translations, a while back I suggested a similar separation, but on reflection I think it would be more useful to have flags : 1) problem with documentation (and not function) These bugs would be best corrected by those with good documentation skills, not necessarily the average programmmer. 2) problem with translation (and not function) These bugs would be best corrected by technical translators for the language in question. Again, not necessarily the average programmer. I am working on a script intended to make it easyer to report bugs usefully. Technically, would these flags be new fields, or standardized entries in the Keywords field, such as NEEDINFO in the present Mandriva bugzilla ? Just verified with bugzilla to make sure. Documentation and translations are listed as options under "components". However any such bug could also be associated with another component, such as "core packages" or "release media". We could even have translation bugs of documentation. So it would seem better if these were independant flags, instead of options. It that case they would be new fields. As for security, there are already 2 such flags, at the bottom of the main bug entry page. (Under the title "privacy".) Checking either of these flags will cause a bug to be hidden from most users, as explained beside the check boxes. (For this reason, it would be better to _not_ duplicate these particular flags elsewhere.) see https://qa.mandriva.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Mandriva Linux&format=guided The potential problem with new fields, which would be better, would be to make shure that they are accessible with the xmlrpc interface, that I use for my script. The inbuilt Keywords field, which does not appear on the Mandriva 'guided' input page, but does appear on the 'expert' input page, is accessible with the xmlrpc interface. The xmlrpc interface does not seem to automatically have access to all fields. But it is difficult to be shure : the xmlrpc interface of Mandriva bugzilla does not work; and the Mageia bugzilla only has the default fields at present. I think I will have to create a local bugzilla to test that. I have been working on a modified bugzilla entry page - only the user side, but it shows the layout I had in mind not quite finished - I'll post it on the list (or elsewhere if you wish) when done. Good luck with your script :) Thanks André -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
Le vendredi 07 janvier 2011 à 19:04 +0100, Romain d'Alverny a écrit : > Ok, the point of this discussion is to know what we put as: > - Products > - Components > > This can be updated later (as in: adding/renaming > products/components). So we should just aim at the smallest acceptable > set, so that we can open our Bugzilla instance, see what it shows, > update and open it for actual usage. > > So trying to summarize above discussion, I suggest as products: > > * Mageia with components: >- installation >- software >- new software request >- release (media, process) >- (for versions, cauldron first, we'll see later for the rest) > > * Websites with components: >- www >- forum >- blog >- wiki >- maint-db >- (for versions, live/dev does not make much sense here; so maybe > just numbering, maybe just no version for a start; depends on the > release process) If we intend ( and Buchan do, and I am sure that Stormi also ) to reuse and let people reuse some of the web software we wrote outside of Mageia ( ie, Buchan spoke of having identity to be proposed to the openldap community ), I would keep website for the installation we have, and also treat them as software for people who deployed it on their own server. But that doesn't apply to everything, obviously. So in website, we treat our instances, and then I think that depend on the number of instance we have. Even if I doubt we will have more than "stable" "no stable" ( or trunk / stable, whatever the name ). > * Infrastructure >- ? (misc?) I do think that people should fill bug report against me elsehwere than on mageia bugzilla. For infrastructure, I guess we can simply put 1 product, and later decide once we see what is buggy ( because we did not plan to have bugs yet, so we cannot tell where they should be filled ). Maybe say that we review the component every year with bug triage team ? -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 19:04, Romain d'Alverny wrote: > * Mageia with components: > - installation > - software + RPM package > - new software request replace with new RPM package request > - release (media, process) > - (for versions, cauldron first, we'll see later for the rest) And or maybe have the "software" component brought up as a separate Product, actually (would make even more sense), with the list of actual software involved. Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
Ok, the point of this discussion is to know what we put as: - Products - Components This can be updated later (as in: adding/renaming products/components). So we should just aim at the smallest acceptable set, so that we can open our Bugzilla instance, see what it shows, update and open it for actual usage. So trying to summarize above discussion, I suggest as products: * Mageia with components: - installation - software - new software request - release (media, process) - (for versions, cauldron first, we'll see later for the rest) * Websites with components: - www - forum - blog - wiki - maint-db - (for versions, live/dev does not make much sense here; so maybe just numbering, maybe just no version for a start; depends on the release process) * Infrastructure - ? (misc?) If that's ok (or if we can make it smaller so that it's working), we can move forward and set this up finally (modulo the rpm field setup, but that's not blocking for once). Cheers, Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 17:49, andre999 wrote: > > Frederic Janssens a écrit : > >> >> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 06:19, andre999 wrote: >>> >>> >>> As for documentation and translations, a while back I suggested a similar >>> separation, but on reflection I think it would be more useful to have flags >>> : >>> >>> 1) problem with documentation (and not function) >>> These bugs would be best corrected by those with good documentation skills, >>> not necessarily the average programmmer. >>> >>> 2) problem with translation (and not function) >>> These bugs would be best corrected by technical translators for the >>> language in question. Again, not necessarily the average programmer. >>> >> >> I am working on a script intended to make it easyer to report bugs usefully. >> >> Technically, would these flags be new fields, >> or standardized entries in the Keywords field, >> such as NEEDINFO in the present Mandriva bugzilla ? > > > Just verified with bugzilla to make sure. > > Documentation and translations are listed as options under "components". > However any such bug could also be associated with another component, such as > "core packages" or "release media". > We could even have translation bugs of documentation. > > So it would seem better if these were independant flags, instead of options. > It that case they would be new fields. > > As for security, there are already 2 such flags, at the bottom of the main > bug entry page. (Under the title "privacy".) > Checking either of these flags will cause a bug to be hidden from most users, > as explained beside the check boxes. > (For this reason, it would be better to _not_ duplicate these particular > flags elsewhere.) > > see https://qa.mandriva.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Mandriva Linux&format=guided The potential problem with new fields, which would be better, would be to make shure that they are accessible with the xmlrpc interface, that I use for my script. The inbuilt Keywords field, which does not appear on the Mandriva 'guided' input page, but does appear on the 'expert' input page, is accessible with the xmlrpc interface. The xmlrpc interface does not seem to automatically have access to all fields. But it is difficult to be shure : the xmlrpc interface of Mandriva bugzilla does not work; and the Mageia bugzilla only has the default fields at present. I think I will have to create a local bugzilla to test that. > Good luck with your script :) Thanks > André -- Frederic
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
Michael Scherer a écrit : Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 18:43 +0100, Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : 2011/1/6 Michael Scherer: And for the rest, well, the bug be it in documentation, translation, or code must follow the same lifecycle, and imho, should be grouper logically and we should not duplicate information everywhere, with information being "version of the product/components". How would you group a translation error in the documentation of rpmdrake? How would you group a documentation error in teh documentation of rpmdrake How would you group a translation error in rpmdrake? The question before "how" is "why". Why would you want to group all documentation error together ? Grouping by "product" ( not in the bugzilla meaning ) is IMHO required to avoid duplication of version, to be able to see what bugs affect a precise version of a software, be it a documentation bug, translation bug and so on, and so decide if a software is ready for release. Good point. Mandriva bugzilla currently includes documentation and translations as options in the "components" field. It would be much better to have them as flags, independant of components, as each could apply to other components. (We even have translations of documentation.) This would facilitate searches for those who wish to identify (and correct) documentation or translation errors, and help ensure that such bugs are identified as such. (Instead of being identified by the actuel component.) Thus adding documentation and translation flags, and removing them as options of components. And, as you suggest, keep grouping by the product, instead of the type of bug. my 2 cents :)
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
Frederic Janssens a écrit : On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 06:19, andre999 wrote: As for documentation and translations, a while back I suggested a similar separation, but on reflection I think it would be more useful to have flags : 1) problem with documentation (and not function) These bugs would be best corrected by those with good documentation skills, not necessarily the average programmmer. 2) problem with translation (and not function) These bugs would be best corrected by technical translators for the language in question. Again, not necessarily the average programmer. One or both could be checked for any particular bug. Thus facilitating a search for bugs based on these flags. Those wanting to ignore such bugs could equally avoid seeing them. This would tend to facilitate the correction of such bugs, which tend to be lost and not corrected for long periods of time. (At least that is the case with Mandriva, and much other free/open source software.) (e.g.1: A number of French translations.) (e.g.2: Much documentation is essentially useless to the uninitiated.) However, in my view, documentation and translation bugs would also tend to be reported by different people than those who would report function bugs. So it would be useful if such flags were to appear on this initial page, as well on the main bug entry page. Something like "This bug concerns [ ]documentation ... [ ]translation ..." With whatever other factors, such as security, on which we decide to focus. With whatever boxes are checked carried over automatically to the main bug entry page. I am working on a script intended to make it easyer to report bugs usefully. Technically, would these flags be new fields, or standardized entries in the Keywords field, such as NEEDINFO in the present Mandriva bugzilla ? Just verified with bugzilla to make sure. Documentation and translations are listed as options under "components". However any such bug could also be associated with another component, such as "core packages" or "release media". We could even have translation bugs of documentation. So it would seem better if these were independant flags, instead of options. It that case they would be new fields. As for security, there are already 2 such flags, at the bottom of the main bug entry page. (Under the title "privacy".) Checking either of these flags will cause a bug to be hidden from most users, as explained beside the check boxes. (For this reason, it would be better to _not_ duplicate these particular flags elsewhere.) see https://qa.mandriva.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Mandriva Linux&format=guided Good luck with your script :) André
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 06:19, andre999 wrote: > > > As for documentation and translations, a while back I suggested a similar > separation, but on reflection I think it would be more useful to have flags : > > 1) problem with documentation (and not function) > These bugs would be best corrected by those with good documentation skills, > not necessarily the average programmmer. > > 2) problem with translation (and not function) > These bugs would be best corrected by technical translators for the language > in question. Again, not necessarily the average programmer. > > One or both could be checked for any particular bug. > Thus facilitating a search for bugs based on these flags. > Those wanting to ignore such bugs could equally avoid seeing them. > > This would tend to facilitate the correction of such bugs, which tend to be > lost and not corrected for long periods of time. (At least that is the case > with Mandriva, and much other free/open source software.) > (e.g.1: A number of French translations.) > (e.g.2: Much documentation is essentially useless to the uninitiated.) > > However, in my view, documentation and translation bugs would also tend to be > reported by different people than those who would report function bugs. > So it would be useful if such flags were to appear on this initial page, as > well on the main bug entry page. > Something like > "This bug concerns [ ]documentation ... [ ]translation ..." > With whatever other factors, such as security, on which we decide to focus. > With whatever boxes are checked carried over automatically to the main bug > entry page. I am working on a script intended to make it easyer to report bugs usefully. Technically, would these flags be new fields, or standardized entries in the Keywords field, such as NEEDINFO in the present Mandriva bugzilla ? > > another 2 cents :) > > André -- Frederic
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 21:21, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: > 2011/1/6 Michael Scherer : >> >> So, treating all rpm the same, wether we develop it or not is more >> coherent ( no exception on bug that should be reported either upstream >> or not, so easier to decide ), would enhance external reuse and >> contribution ( more visibility ), and raise quality ( as we will have to >> think to more than our use case ). > > I see your point and I agree with you here. 1+ too. Very well explained. Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
Michael Scherer a écrit : Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 17:52 +0100, Dexter Morgan a écrit : On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Michael Scherer wrote: Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 17:05 +0100, Dexter Morgan a écrit : After reading the various mails i think we coulddo like this Product : Mageia Components: - Documentation - Installation - RPM packages - New Packages requests - Release Media - Security - Translations Could you explain what kind of bug would go in every category ? For exemple, translation would apply to what kind of bug, same goes for documentation ? If we have a separate documentation, wouldn't it be more logical to have it as a product, with various subcomponent like each manual ? yes good vision, we could remove documentation then. For translation, shouldn't it be attached to either a software, a website, a document than be separate ? so what do you suggest ? to add Translation as a product ? or to remove it ? i was more thinking of the translation of the softwares here. I would remove it, and put it with whatever you call "software". As for documentation and translations, a while back I suggested a similar separation, but on reflection I think it would be more useful to have flags : 1) problem with documentation (and not function) These bugs would be best corrected by those with good documentation skills, not necessarily the average programmmer. 2) problem with translation (and not function) These bugs would be best corrected by technical translators for the language in question. Again, not necessarily the average programmer. One or both could be checked for any particular bug. Thus facilitating a search for bugs based on these flags. Those wanting to ignore such bugs could equally avoid seeing them. This would tend to facilitate the correction of such bugs, which tend to be lost and not corrected for long periods of time. (At least that is the case with Mandriva, and much other free/open source software.) (e.g.1: A number of French translations.) (e.g.2: Much documentation is essentially useless to the uninitiated.) However, in my view, documentation and translation bugs would also tend to be reported by different people than those who would report function bugs. So it would be useful if such flags were to appear on this initial page, as well on the main bug entry page. Something like "This bug concerns [ ]documentation ... [ ]translation ..." With whatever other factors, such as security, on which we decide to focus. With whatever boxes are checked carried over automatically to the main bug entry page. another 2 cents :) André
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
2011/1/6 Michael Scherer : > > So, treating all rpm the same, wether we develop it or not is more > coherent ( no exception on bug that should be reported either upstream > or not, so easier to decide ), would enhance external reuse and > contribution ( more visibility ), and raise quality ( as we will have to > think to more than our use case ). I see your point and I agree with you here. Points I did not take into account. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 18:43 +0100, Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : > 2011/1/6 Michael Scherer : > > > > And for the rest, well, the bug be it in documentation, translation, or > > code must follow the same lifecycle, and imho, should be grouper > > logically and we should not duplicate information everywhere, with > > information being "version of the product/components". > > How would you group a translation error in the documentation of rpmdrake? > How would you group a documentation error in teh documentation of rpmdrake > How would you group a translation error in rpmdrake? The question before "how" is "why". Why would you want to group all documentation error together ? Grouping by "product" ( not in the bugzilla meaning ) is IMHO required to avoid duplication of version, to be able to see what bugs affect a precise version of a software, be it a documentation bug, translation bug and so on, and so decide if a software is ready for release. And the problem is we are mixing the package and the software, and I think we should not. One of the goal of the project is "work in collaboration with other open source projects.". Code reuse is one of the way to achieve it. But not having a clear separation between distribution ( aka rpm ) and software ( ie, tarball and code ) prevented code reuse in the past at least at a psychological level, if not at a practical level. Code and package were not separated, so editing urpmi spec required to use a different procedure. That's 1 bad point ( exceptions are always sooner or later causing human error ). Not separating code and packages make people forget to keep genericity in mind, thus preventing code reuse ( hardcoding configuration, or thing that should be made more generic ). See the work we have to do on youri. We didn't have formal release process for tools like urpmi, no external website, no tarball. Basically, no visibility. And the idea of a forge was partially fueled by this, at least from what I remember ( ie to give visibility, to ease outside contribution ). So, treating all rpm the same, wether we develop it or not is more coherent ( no exception on bug that should be reported either upstream or not, so easier to decide ), would enhance external reuse and contribution ( more visibility ), and raise quality ( as we will have to think to more than our use case ). -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
On 6 January 2011 18:39, Michael Scherer wrote: > Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 17:05 +0100, Dexter Morgan a écrit : >> After reading the various mails i think we coulddo like this >> >> >> Product : Mageia >> >> Componments: >> >> - Documentation >> - Installation >> - RPM packages >> - New Packages requests >> - Release Media >> - Security >> - Translations > > Could you explain what kind of bug would go in every category ? > > For exemple, translation would apply to what kind of bug, same goes for > documentation ? I don't have a problem with dropping Documentation; but not translations, the way it works in mdv buzilla is that when the Component is set to Translations the i18n ML was CC'ed, which is advantageous as translators are best fit to fix such bugs (this raises the question of where translators want those emails to go, which one of their ML's?). > > If we have a separate documentation, wouldn't it be more logical to have > it as a product, with various subcomponent like each manual ? [..] > > For translation, shouldn't it be attached to either a software, a > website, a document than be separate ? See above. > > For security, that seems rather vague too, security about the rpm ( in > which case it would go with rpm packages rather than be separate ), the > infrastructure ? > Drop it, but the note about "For security sensitive bugs please make sure to assign to security@ as well as tick the checkbox above" as you can see here: https://qa.mandriva.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Mandriva%20Linux&format=guided Point is, such bugs can only be seen by the reporter and sec team. > Release media would mean what, cd/dvd/usb, mirrors ? > All of them, basically anything that has to do with the release ISO's. Examples: - missing package from DVD or Live ISO's - wrong md5sum/sha1sum on the mirrors - missing/corrupt ISO's - CD ISO's that don't fit on a 700MB CD (as I saw with some of the 2010.2 ISO's which had to be recreated by mdv) > -- > Michael Scherer > > -- Ahmad Samir
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
2011/1/6 Michael Scherer : > > And for the rest, well, the bug be it in documentation, translation, or > code must follow the same lifecycle, and imho, should be grouper > logically and we should not duplicate information everywhere, with > information being "version of the product/components". How would you group a translation error in the documentation of rpmdrake? How would you group a documentation error in teh documentation of rpmdrake How would you group a translation error in rpmdrake? > It is not i18n goal to triage bugs. That would be duplication in term of > ressources, in term of setup, etc. And so if people want to sort bugs, > they can join the proper team. Doing otherwise would bring complexity > the setup for a relatively low gain IMHO. I did not say "i18n should triage those bugs". I said the triage team could handle those bugs easier and send them to i18n to fix them. But as I said, IMHO this is a question with advantages and disadvantages on both sides. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 17:52 +0100, Dexter Morgan a écrit : > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Michael Scherer wrote: > > Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 17:05 +0100, Dexter Morgan a écrit : > >> After reading the various mails i think we coulddo like this > >> > >> > >> Product : Mageia > >> > >> Componments: > >> > >> - Documentation > >> - Installation > >> - RPM packages > >> - New Packages requests > >> - Release Media > >> - Security > >> - Translations > > > > Could you explain what kind of bug would go in every category ? > > > > For exemple, translation would apply to what kind of bug, same goes for > > documentation ? > > > > > If we have a separate documentation, wouldn't it be more logical to have > > it as a product, with various subcomponent like each manual ? > > yes good vision, we could remove documentation then. > > > For translation, shouldn't it be attached to either a software, a > > website, a document than be separate ? > > so what do you suggest ? to add Translation as a product ? or to remove it ? > i was more thinking of the translation of the softwares here. I would remove it, and put it with whatever you call "software". > > For security, that seems rather vague too, security about the rpm ( in > > which case it would go with rpm packages rather than be separate ), the > > infrastructure ? > > the software itself for the infrastructure that i forgot we need a > separate Product. The software itself ? Can you be more explicit ? > > Release media would mean what, cd/dvd/usb, mirrors ? > > I used ahmad proposal for this one but i have questions for the medias > maybe this should go in the infrastructure product. WDYT ? Well, I think I still do not know what this mean. -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 17:56 +0100, Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : > 2011/1/6 Michael Scherer : > > For translation, shouldn't it be attached to either a software, a > > website, a document than be separate ? > > This is more a philosophical question. If translation bugs are filed > in a separate category it makes it easy for the translators and normal > package section is not clogged by this. Since we don't handle translation in a vast majority of packages ( as they come from upstream ), that would be a upstream bug like any others for a rpm packager. And for the rest, well, the bug be it in documentation, translation, or code must follow the same lifecycle, and imho, should be grouper logically and we should not duplicate information everywhere, with information being "version of the product/components". > Example: translation bugs could be generally triaged to i18n group if > in a separate category. If the translation bug of foo.rpm is in the > normal package category trieage team has to read the description to > find out that it is not a program/packager bug but a translation but, > then hand it to i18n. It is not i18n goal to triage bugs. That would be duplication in term of ressources, in term of setup, etc. And so if people want to sort bugs, they can join the proper team. Doing otherwise would bring complexity the setup for a relatively low gain IMHO. -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
2011/1/6 Michael Scherer : > Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 17:05 +0100, Dexter Morgan a écrit : >> After reading the various mails i think we coulddo like this >> >> >> Product : Mageia >> >> Componments: >> >> - Documentation >> - Installation >> - RPM packages >> - New Packages requests >> - Release Media >> - Security >> - Translations > > Could you explain what kind of bug would go in every category ? > > For exemple, translation would apply to what kind of bug, same goes for > documentation ? > > If we have a separate documentation, wouldn't it be more logical to have > it as a product, with various subcomponent like each manual ? I think he is referring to errors in the documentation like wrong screenshots or whatever. This could go into the rpm section, provided that the official documentation will bne distributed as a package (as in mandriva-doc-*) > For translation, shouldn't it be attached to either a software, a > website, a document than be separate ? This is more a philosophical question. If translation bugs are filed in a separate category it makes it easy for the translators and normal package section is not clogged by this. Example: translation bugs could be generally triaged to i18n group if in a separate category. If the translation bug of foo.rpm is in the normal package category trieage team has to read the description to find out that it is not a program/packager bug but a translation but, then hand it to i18n. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Michael Scherer wrote: > Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 17:05 +0100, Dexter Morgan a écrit : >> After reading the various mails i think we coulddo like this >> >> >> Product : Mageia >> >> Componments: >> >> - Documentation >> - Installation >> - RPM packages >> - New Packages requests >> - Release Media >> - Security >> - Translations > > Could you explain what kind of bug would go in every category ? > > For exemple, translation would apply to what kind of bug, same goes for > documentation ? > If we have a separate documentation, wouldn't it be more logical to have > it as a product, with various subcomponent like each manual ? yes good vision, we could remove documentation then. > For translation, shouldn't it be attached to either a software, a > website, a document than be separate ? so what do you suggest ? to add Translation as a product ? or to remove it ? i was more thinking of the translation of the softwares here. > For security, that seems rather vague too, security about the rpm ( in > which case it would go with rpm packages rather than be separate ), the > infrastructure ? the software itself for the infrastructure that i forgot we need a separate Product. > Release media would mean what, cd/dvd/usb, mirrors ? I used ahmad proposal for this one but i have questions for the medias maybe this should go in the infrastructure product. WDYT ?
Re: [Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 17:05 +0100, Dexter Morgan a écrit : > After reading the various mails i think we coulddo like this > > > Product : Mageia > > Componments: > > - Documentation > - Installation > - RPM packages > - New Packages requests > - Release Media > - Security > - Translations Could you explain what kind of bug would go in every category ? For exemple, translation would apply to what kind of bug, same goes for documentation ? If we have a separate documentation, wouldn't it be more logical to have it as a product, with various subcomponent like each manual ? For translation, shouldn't it be attached to either a software, a website, a document than be separate ? For security, that seems rather vague too, security about the rpm ( in which case it would go with rpm packages rather than be separate ), the infrastructure ? Release media would mean what, cd/dvd/usb, mirrors ? -- Michael Scherer
[Mageia-dev] New bugzilla proposal
After reading the various mails i think we coulddo like this Product : Mageia Componments: - Documentation - Installation - RPM packages - New Packages requests - Release Media - Security - Translations Version: Cauldron ( and we will add the versions when they will be supported ) Products : Mageia Websites Componements: - Mageia.org - Identity.mageia.org Version: live ( or a better wording ) trunk For the different projets we will host they will be one by Product and this will be up to the main dev to tell which componments (s)he wants. For the bugzilla layout i would like to reuse mdv one to start. But later we can change this with more functionnalities and with more ajax but for now this would allow us to provide a working bugzilla this week. Any comments ?
