Re: PROPOSAL: Evolution for GNOME 2.6

On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 13:34, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 22:45, Seth Nickell wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:35pm, Nat Friedman wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 12:59, Rob Adams wrote:
> > >>  We'd be insane if we didn't put evolution into the desktop release.
> > >>  Would evolution be moving to gnome CVS/gnome bugzilla?
> > >
> > > Moving the bugzilla is hard, because we have a lot of existing bugs on
> > > and all the links would die.  Even doing something
> > > like saying "all new bugs will be in b.g.o" is hard because you can't 
> > > do
> > > cross-bugzilla dup-marking and things like that.
> > 
> > We did manage with nautilus/eazel bugzilla, though I'm sure it wasn't 
> > easy. That said... I'm not sure how importnant it is to migrate into evo 
> > into gnome bugzilla (other than as a "matter of principle).
> FWIW, I believe the scripts that did the nautilus import (which
> maintained inter-bug links, etc.) are still around somewhere in cvs or
> on widget. I'd have to poke around, though. In general, it /is/ a nice
> thing for the bugsquad to have it all in one place, and I believe JP is
> fine with that. The benefits aren't that great, though, so if the
> knowledge of how to migrate stuff has been lost, the cost may be too
> high at this time.

It is nice for the bugsquad to have all the bugs in one place, since it
is a major PITA to move between bugzillas. It's also useful for when
people evolution bugs against acme (shrug).

I have seen scripts related to this in cvs. It's not _too_ hard, but a
bit fiddly. I'd recommend ensuring that inter-bugzilla links and
attachments keep working before doing any sort of transfer.

Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]