[GNC-dev] Bugzilla Migration Status Update (2018-05-24)

[Geert Janssens]

Op vrijdag 1 juni 2018 01:38:43 CEST schreef John Ralls:
> > On May 24, 2018, at 9:40 AM, Derek Atkins <warlord at MIT.EDU> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Just another Bugzilla migration update.
> > 
> > tl;dr:  DB was blown away again; Multiple products have been split and
> > 
> >        bugs have been migrated to them.  User/group permissions have
> >        been updated. Please take a look and let me know your thoughts.
> > 
> > First, yes, I blew away the DB again.  If you had reset your password
> > before, I'm sorry, you'll need to do it again.  Note that this will
> > happen again at the final migration, too.
> > 
> > Some of the major changes this time around:
> > 
> > - I created three additional products: Website, Documentation, and
> > 
> >  Packaging.
> > 
> > - Each of these products has at least one but often time more-than-one
> > 
> >  component.  These new components inherit the settings of the original.
> > 
> > - I tried to file bugs appropriately into the new components.  This was
> > 
> >  done using heuristics to look for certain key words or phrases in the
> >  bugs of the original component and split them apart into the new
> >  ones.  Please take a look.  If you find issues please let me know and
> >  I can try to adjust my heuristics for the final migration.
> > 
> > - I've added a GnuCash_developers group with appropriate permissions on
> > 
> >  all the groups, and I've taken everyone who was listed as a GnuCash
> >  developer from GnomeBZ and added them to GnuCash_developers with both
> >  Membership and Bless permissions (which means any dev can add new
> >  devs).  I did not check to see if this was the case previously.
> > 
> > - I've removed the TestProduct.
> > 
> > KNOWN ISSUES:
> > 
> > - BUG CREATION DOES NOT WORK.  I know it wont work, so please don't test
> > 
> >  it.  It will just create a broken remnant in the database and you'll
> >  just receive an error in the process.  This is unfortunately due to
> >  required code-changes to make the migration work properly.
> > 
> > - Some of the old pages from GnomeBZ don't exist.  For example, the
> > 
> >  /page.cgi?id=browse.html page does not exist (which is where you get
> >  to from the Browse link in the header). I am pretty sure this was a
> >  GnomeBZ customization.  I can look at installing it -- but if you have
> >  a pointer to it that would help.
> > 
> > - I still am not properly dealing with the attachment status.
> > 
> > WHAT I'D LIKE FROM YOU:
> > 
> > - Please take a look at how I refiled the bugs into the various
> > 
> >  products/components.  If you see issues with them, please let me
> >  know.  Pointing me to a bug# and where it should be would be useful.
> > 
> > - Take a look at configuration issues -- what did GnomeBZ have that we
> > 
> >  don't (or vice versa).  What config changes do I need to make?  What
> >  GnomeBZ extensions do you really want me to find/install?
> 
> Looked through the bugs moved to other products. There are a few misses in
> packaging: 786202 should be in packaging:MacOS; 731864, 737646, 784161,
> 788372, and 793461 should be in packaging:Windows. That's OK, there are
> only a few and it would be too hard to write a perfect binning script. We
> can fix those up after the final migration.
> 
Also 792226 was misclassified as Website, but that's because it was already wrong on gnome 
bz. I have fixed that, it should now appear in Documentation.

> The only Product/Component question I have is about Tip of the Day and man
> page bugs. The current script puts them in the Documentation product, but
> the code for them is in gnucash rather than gnucash-docs. Which Product
> should they go in?

Good question. I can find motivations for both options.

I imagine these bugs are typically something for a "Documentation team" handle, or someone 
interested in working on Documentation bugs (we're too small to talk in terms of teams). So 
such person would more likely find the bug if it was under the documentation product.

Given the sources for both live in the gnucash repo means they rather follow the release 
cadence of the gnucash product not the documentation one. As we usually release those 
together that rarely matters. Another possible motivation to keep them under the Gnucash 
product could be repo/bugtracker integration where changes in a repo would update related 
bugs. We currently don't have such integration so at that also doesn't matter at present.

I'm inclined to keep them under Documentation for now. We can always move them later on if 
needed.

Geert