Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

[Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org>]

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:19:28PM +0100, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> Hi Olav,
> 
> On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 17:00 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> 
> > For that the proposal is that the following is not part of the initial
> > upgraded bgo:
> >  * The points system
> >  * index.cgi UI mods
> >  * Making a new favicon
> >  * The infomessages on show_bug.cgi
> >  * Layout modifications for attachment table and the login box
> >  * duplicates.cgi modifications
> >  * Fixing the comment headers
> >  * Patch and keyword emblems
> >  * delete-keyword.pl, mass-reassign-bugs.pl, and year-end-stats.pl
> >  * describeuser.cgi
> > 
> > Possibly even:
> > 
> >  * Canned responses (this would be a priority immediately after
> > the upgrade)
> >    (the javascript stuff to say things are a dupe etc)
> >  * show_bug.cgi UI re-ordering & float-right box
> >  * simple-bug-guide.cgi
> >  * Grouping products in a <dl> by classification when displayed
> >  * Asking people if they've provided the NEEDINFO info.
> >  * Boogle enhancements to QuickSearch (or maybe just implement
> > the most important ones first and theno implement the rest later?)
> >    --> this is the GNOME specific 'simple search'
> > 
> > 
> > Is above acceptable?
> 
> For me, this all depends on whether the functionality will be reduced or
> somehow buggy or not present at all.
> 
> I think at least the following features are essential to work:
> - patch review status
> - simple-dup-finder
> - stock answers
> - describeuser.cgi
> - Boogle (if with this you mean search by keyword)

With Boogle I mean:
 * http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=boogle-help.html
 * http://bugzilla.gnome.org/query.cgi?format=short

The syntax of the simple search available since 2.22 is different.
Intention is to extend the 2.22 syntax with the most common things
Boogle has.

> Couldn't you (or anyone else will be working on this) work on a database
> dump until the basic features are implemented and then merge back the
> changes? If you need testing on a separate installation as things get

The party sponsoring the work wants to sponsor this so bgo is at Bz 3.2.
They don't want to wait 9 months or whatever before bgo is at 3.2. This
the reason for reduced features. Otherwise it would logically be
development until everything is ready and switch only at that time.

> implemented, I (and I guess others from the bugsquad) can help with
> that.
> Otherwise, I am not sure it would be acceptable (for me at least) to
> stay without all those functionalities for 6+ months.

I am not sure what the timeframe is for every feature btw. The intention
is to order them by need, and deliver in multiple stages. So some
features might be missing for 6 months, some only for a month. Further,
some might be available from the start.

-- 
Regards,
Olav