Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

[Luis Villa]

On Jan 7, 2008 6:03 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > - removal of various non-upstream 'features' that RH uses that Fedora
> > >   doesn't need
> >
> > 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.
>
> Would these solutions be limited to a "read-only" scope?

Maybe 'delete-only' would be more accurate? I was just responding to
the initial point, which spoke of features that need to be removed,
rather than things that need to be added.

> > > Demerits:
> > >
> > > - RH developers no longer have one-stop shopping
> > > - would need RH changes to support moving bugs to RH bugzilla
> > > - would need to run our own instance
> >
> > - RHEL should view Fedora as an integral part of the RHEL development
> > and QA process. Fedora should be doing everything it can to encourage
> > that belief, so that more RHEL QA happens in Fedora, rather than in
> > RHEL. Going in the opposite direction by making this harder is cutting
> > off your nose to spite your face.
>
> +1.  Is it just me, or does the scariness of moving the build systems,
> etc., outside the wall seem now so much less in comparison?  Scary =
> hard_work + deepthought is OK, but scary = unknown_pitfalls ... not so
> much.

It helps when the problem space is well-defined. My sense (and I may
well be overlooking things here) is that currently there is a vague
(and accurate) sense that Fedora bugzilla is really sub-optimal, but
that no one really has a strong sense of how to fix it. I just want
everyone to not underestimate the pain of hacking bugzilla (the
codebase is vastly better than it was, but still grody) and
particularly the

> > > - would wipe out old bugs
> >
> > Wiping out old bugs is a good thing; on balance, unless you have
> > *bazillions* of testers, most old bugs cost more time to regularly
> > test/recheck/update/etc. than they are worth.
>
> True, but of course this should be concomitant with necessary steps to
> keep their reporters interested and engaged in Fedora wherever possible.

Of course. I don't regret what I did to trigger this:
http://jwz.livejournal.com/154529.html

but it is possible that I could have done a better job explaining why I did it.

Luis