Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?
- From: Max Kanat-Alexander <mkanat bugzilla org>
- To: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 13:28:49 -0800
Hey folks. I'm Max, from the Bugzilla Project. I also have a
company called Everything Solved, and we'd be the ones doing the
upgrade work if it happens.
The fact of who *I* am (Everything Solved) is not confidential
at the moment. Only the funder's identity is confidential until we
decide whether or not we're actually going ahead.
Anyhow, I've read through the thread and here's my feedback:
All the attachment status stuff will still be there. The fact
that they *show up* in the attachment table will probably even be there.
They haven't ever been *changeable* from show_bug.cgi, as far as I
could see in the code.
Instead of the patch emblem, would they rather just have a
"patches" column in the buglist output that shows the names of patches
and the current attachment status on them? We wrote some code for
bugzilla.mozilla.org that does something similar, it wouldn't be hard to
bring it over. (It would still be a Phase 2 item.) It looks like this
Of course, bugzilla.mozilla.org uses Bugzilla's standard Flags
system, and not attachment statuses, so that's what you're seeing there.
Development will be done using bzr, so you'll get a bzr branch
with the customizations in it.
I noticed Behdad mentioned (a bit off-topic, but I'll reply) an
external fulltext search engine. The problem is that it then becomes a
bit hard to specify other Bugzilla search limiters in the same query
(such as, say, per-product fulltext searching).
As far as collaboration goes, we're always looking for new
contractors (that is, we're willing to pay people who are good
Bugzilla developers to help us out on the project), but there is a
definite code quality concern. I will be reviewing everything, and so
somebody has to be able to demonstrate that they can produce
high-quality Bugzilla code quickly, or they're going to be spending
more of my time than they're saving.
As far as upstreaming goes, I think we'd all like that, but
that's up to the funder, not me. If anybody else would like to fund
upstreaming, that would work, too. Or anybody is free to take the
patches that we create (which will be under the Mozilla Public License)
and attempt to upstream them, themselves--that's fine, too.
From the feedback, it sounds like the most important items to
bring back immediately after we have an upgraded bugzilla.gnome.org are:
1. Canned responses
3. Patch and keyword emblems
4. NEEDINFO asking
5. show_bug re-ordering
6. Other layout modifications
And then the other features after that.
Is that right?
Competent, Friendly Bugzilla and Perl Services. Everything Else, too.
] [Thread Prev