Re: bug-buddy branched for 2.6

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 12:12 +0200, Fernando Herrera wrote:
> Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 09:34:07AM +0800, James Henstridge escribió:
> 
> >>Should this be xml-rpc instead?
> >> 
> >>
> >Given that submitting bugs to bugzilla is pretty simple and 
> >standardised, is there any benefit to using a non-standard bugzilla 
> >feature here?  All you really need to do is acquire a login cookie 
> >(going to /query.cgi?goAheadAndLogin=1 will do that), then do a post to 
> >/post_bug.cgi.
> 
> 	I think interating with a web application via xml-rpc is a cleaner
> way than manually do what a browser does. 
> 
> 	I think xml-rpc is on redhat bugzilla. Luis do you know if there
> is any plan about integrating xml-rpc stuff in bugzilla mainstream?

AFAIK it has not been submitted upstream, and I'm frankly not sure why,
so James' comment definitely has some validity.

That said, the POST stuff is probably not going to work for us without
forking either- we get no API guarantees from upstream that POST will
keep the same variable names, etc., during an upgrade, and we're aiming
to do those more frequently as bugzilla uptream shifts to time-based
releases. So if we do the post stuff without forking a separate
bugzilla-post.cgi, and switch to bugzilla 2.18, we'll have broken every
bug-buddy out there. That might cut down on the number of reports, but
is otherwise suboptimal in my mind ;)

Luis