Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

[seth vidal]

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 13:57 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 02:48:43PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:31 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> > 
> > > I agree that it would be hard to get this without splitting, and that
> > > Bugzilla is cluttered enough as-is, but given the other benefits of
> > > staying upstream, I'd suggest that greasemonkey or a server-side
> > > 'fedora view' which hide these extra features are better ways to solve
> > > this.
> > > 
> > 
> > It might be worthwhile to split if we could ensure one feature worked
> > from rh-bz to fedora bz: report migration. It'd be great if fedora bz
> > could have an 'add this to rh bz'. That would make interaction easier
> > and, hopefully, make the transition easier for rh employees.
> 
> 'add this to rh bz for product version $foo' would be even nicer.  I
> routinely have to dupe bugs several times, once for each affected RHEL
> version, and once for each other impacted product.
> 
> Not that I like Launchpad being proprietary (and that's clearly a
> showstopper here), but it has this concept of integrating with other
> bug trackers in this manner (and keeping track that you did so), which
> is very convenient.
> 

It seems like the only thing launchpad offers is a place to see a
summary view of bug trackers. If we can get inter-bugzilla
bug-migration/duplication happening then it seems to me that a summary
view of projects and bug trackers is python-bugzilla + packagedb, ne?

-sv